Peter Kariuki Maina v Republic

accused’s parents were key prosecution witnesses, his release on bail was likely to result in interference with their evidence. Counsel submitted that bond should be denied at this stage but may be renewed after the accused’s parents testify. 5. In her rejoinder, Ms. Kerubo submitted that although the accused’s parents were key prosecution witnesses in this case, they were in good terms with the accused and as such, he was unlikely to interfere with their evidence. Counsel further submitted that the accused’s mother was willing and ready to stand surety for him; that the accused and the deceased were not related, and that the accused was not a flight risk. 6. I have considered the application, the affidavit sworn in opposition thereto as well as the brief oral submissions made on behalf of both parties. It is trite that under Article 49 (1) (h) of the Constitution, an arrested or accused person has a right to be released on bail or bond on reasonable conditions pending a charge or trial unless there were compelling reasons not to be released. 7. The phrase “compelling reasons” was defined by the Court of Appeal in Michael Juma Oyamo & another V Republic (2019) eKLR; as follows: “ The phrase compelling reasons would denote reasons that are forceful and convincing as to make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bond. Bail should not therefore be denied on flimsy grounds but on real and cogent grounds that meet the high standards set by the Constitution.” 8. That said, Section 123A (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) as read with The Judiciary Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines 2015 paragraph 4.26 provides guidance on the factors courts should consider when exercising their discretion in deciding whether or not compelling reasons had been advanced to justify denial of bail or bond pending trial. These factors include the following; i. Whether the accused was likely to fail to attend court proceedings; ii. Whether he was likely to commit or abet commission of a serious offence; iii. Whether he was likely to endanger the safety of victims, individuals and the public; iv. Whether he was likely to interfere with witnesses or evidence; v. Whether he was likely to endanger national security or whether it was in the public interest or accused’s own safety to detain him in custody. 9. In the present case, the prosecution has contended that the accused should not be admitted to bond or bail allegedly because he did not have a fixed abode and he was thus a flight risk. The second reason the prosecution relied on when opposing the application was that if released at this stage, the accused was likely to interfere with the evidence of his parents who were key prosecution witnesses in this case. 10. The prosecution’s claim that the accused lacked a fixed place of abode has been disproved by the contents of the pre-bail report filed in this Court on 11th April 2025. The report confirmed that the accused resided with his parents at Mioro Location in Mathioya Sub-County prior to his arrest. The prosecution’s claim that he was a flight risk because he did not have a fixed abode therefore lacks any foundation. 11. With regard to the second reason advanced by the prosecution in its opposition to the application, it is not disputed by the defence that the accused person’s parents are indeed some of the prosecution’s https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16935/eng@2025-11-12 2

page 2 of 3

main witnesses. It is also not disputed that the accused person was residing with his parents in their home prior to his arrest and if admitted to bond or bail, he will most probably go back to living with them. 12. Given the close familial relationship between the accused and the key prosecution witnesses who were his parents coupled with the claim by the accused’s learned counsel that the said witnesses and the accused were in good terms, I am satisfied that if released, there was a strong possibility that whether knowingly or unknowingly, his presence at home is likely to influence his parents to give evidence that favoured him which would adversely affect the prosecution case. 13. In the premises, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has demonstrated that there was a compelling reason to justify denial of bond to the accused person for now and I thus decline to allow the application but the same can be renewed after the accused’s parents testify. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. HON. C. W. GITHUA JUDGE In the presence of: Accused in person Ms Kerubo for the accused Ms Manyal for the State Ms Susan Waiganjo, Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16935/eng@2025-11-12 3

page 3 of 3