An Indian national accused of stealing Ksh 356 million from his employer has been released on a bond of Ksh 10 million.
While delivering the ruling, Milimani Senior Principal Magistrate Dolphina Alego acknowledged that the accused is a foreigner and directed that he provides two sureties of an equivalent amount. She also offered an alternative of a cash bail of Ksh 10 million, with two Kenyan contact persons.
The accused, Honey Khatwani, was arraigned yesterday, charged with stealing the said amount from Oki General Trading Limited, where he was employed.
According to the prosecution, the alleged theft occurred on diverse dates between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2024. It is claimed that Khatwani stole USD 2,786,206 (equivalent to Ksh 356,711,174) from Oki General Trading Limited, located in Baba Dogo, Nairobi.
Khatwani denied the charges and requested the court to release him on lenient bond terms, arguing that he is not a flight risk.
State prosecutors Victor Owiti and Hillary Isiakho did not oppose his release on bond but urged the court to impose strict terms due to his foreign status.
“Your Honor, we pray the court imposes stringent bond terms since the accused is a foreigner and, therefore, a flight risk. We do not oppose his release but ask for terms commensurate with the gravity of the charges,” Owiti submitted.
The prosecution also requested the court to order Khatwani to surrender his passport.
In response, defense lawyer Ken Echesa argued that the prosecution’s request for strict terms was a veiled opposition to bail.
“Your Honor, the prosecution’s plea for stringent terms is tantamount to denying the accused bond, contrary to the law which requires that bail terms be reasonable,” Echesa said.
He further told the court that Khatwani resides in Kenya with his family, and the claim that he is a flight risk is unsubstantiated.
“The prosecution has not provided any evidence to support the claim that he is a flight risk,” Echesa added.
He also questioned the validity of the amount allegedly stolen, stating that the figures are unverified and should not influence the bond terms.
“Your Honor, the seriousness of the charge alone should not be the basis for denying the accused reasonable bond terms,” he concluded.
