Automated Summary
Key Facts
The court denied Martin Kimathi's bond application on 2016-05-20, citing his status as a flight risk after he disappeared from 2012-05-11 to 2013-06-03. The State opposed the bond, arguing he would interfere with witnesses from his village and had evaded capture for a year. The accused failed to explain his absence or rebut the flight risk claim despite being given opportunities.
Issues
- The court evaluated the risk of the accused fleeing, noting he was at large from May 2012 to June 2013 and failed to explain his absence.
- The court considered whether the accused would interfere with witnesses, given that they hailed from the same village.
Holdings
The court declined to grant the accused bond, determining that he is a flight risk due to his one-year absence after committing the offense and subsequent arrest. The accused will remain in remand pending case determination.
Remedies
The court denied the accused's application for bond, citing concerns about interference with witnesses and a flight risk due to the accused's history of evading arrest for over a year. The accused will remain in remand pending determination of the case.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that the paramount consideration in a bond application is whether the accused will turn up for trial, particularly emphasizing the risk of non-appearance given the accused's history of evading arrest for a year.
Judge Name
R.P.V. Wendoh
Passage Text
- The paramount consideration in an application for bond is whether accused will turn up for his trial.
- Since the court is not satisfied that the accused will turn up if released on bond because he is a flight risk, I decline to grant the accused bond. He will remain in remand pending determination of the case.
- I have considered the pre-bail report in which there was no objection to his release on bond from the victim's family, the accused's family and the community.