The prosecution and the Printing Services Limited has opposed an application by the a former company employee accused of Stealing Sh 254 million to be allowed to travel to India to see his ailing father.
The court heard that the accused, Cheekati Narsimha Rao is a flight risk and may abscond the jurisdiction of the court should he be allowed to travel.
Rao was ordered to deposit his passport in court after denying charges of theft and forgery.
According to an affidavit by investigating officer Corporal Lucus Juma, the accused had attempted to flee Kenya before to evade trial.
“The applicant (Rao) previously attempted to flee the jurisdiction and fly away to India after his employer lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) against him. He booked a one-way flight to India on 18th October 2024, after he became aware of the complaint,” officer Juma said.
The complainant, in affidavit by Printing Services Director Malkiat Singh Dhillon, also opposed the application urging the court to dismiss it.
Dhillon, through lawyer Kimani Wachira urged the court that should it be inclined to release his passport for him to travel to India, he should deposit over Sh 254 million in court as security.
“In the unlikely event that this court is inclined to grant applicant’s prayers, he should be required to deposit Sh 254,461,768 in court as security to guarantee his return for trial,” Dhillon said.
Wachira submitted that the interests of justice necessitate that Rao remains within this court’s jurisdiction to ensure accountability and prevent flight from trial
The court heard that the ongoing investigations are at a critical stage requiring unrestricted access to Rao for statements, clarifications, and investigative procedures.
“Releasing his passport would significantly hinder the progress of these investigations.”
The court heard that Rao’s attempt to provide documentary evidence in support of his application should be disregarded as the attached documents lack authenticity and appear to be fabricated to mislead the court.
According to Wachira, the circumstances surrounding Rao’s application demonstrate a clear intention to obstruct justice, evade trial, and escape legal consequences.
He added that Rao will suffer no prejudice if his passport remains in custody of the court as he has not presented any genuine reason necessitating its release.
The Director dismissed Rao’s claim that he has been summoned by his father in India. He said it is merely a pretext to abscond, as his father has been in the care of other family members without requiring his presence; after all, Rao is hardly in India despite his father being sick.
The complainant submitted had failed to provide any compelling evidence of the urgency or necessity of his physical presence in India, and he can communicate with his family via alternative means such as video calls, WhatsApp, and other media platforms.
