REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NANYUKI CRIMINAL CASE NO 1 OF 2019 REPUBLIC....................................................................PROSECUTOR VERSUS CARLOS LELESHIPAN.....................................................ACCUSED RULING ON BAIL 1. The Accused in this case, Carlos Leleshipan, is charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code. It is alleged in the information dated 3 rd January 2019 that in the night of 25 th and 26th December, 2018 at Barseloi Market in Samburu North Sub-County within Samburu County in the Republic of Kenya, he murdered one Lesunyai Lepete. 2. On 15th January, 2019 the Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. His trial is scheduled to commence on 21st May, 2019. The Accused has applied to be admitted to bail pending his trial. The Republic has no objection. 3. Bail pending trail is now a constitutional right that will be denied only for compelling reason; and any condition that the court may impose for such bail, again by constitutional edict, must be reasonable. See Article 59(1) (h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 4. As already noted, the Republic has no objection to the Accused being admitted to bail. I have perused the witness statements and documentary evidence supplied to the Accused and to court by the prosecution. I find therein no compelling reason to deny the Accused his constitutional right to bail. 5. In the circumstances the Accused is hereby admitted to bail. He shall be released upon his own cognizance in the sum of KShs 500,000/00 plus two (2) sureties in like sum. It is so ordered. DATED AND SIGNED AT NANYUKI THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 H P G WAWERU JUDGE DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.