Supreme Court of Mauritius, 16 avril 2026, 2026 SAV 59 – S A LOLLJEE v POLICE

Page 1 S A LOLLJEE v POLICE

2026 SAV 59

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAVANNE

Provisional Cause No.: 264/26

Sebastien Arian Lolljee Applicant v/s

Police Respondent

Ruling

The applicant stands provisionally charged under two counts of a provisional information dated 8th April 2026 with the offences of (i) « Drug dealing: cultivating cannabis plants » in breach of Sections 30(1)(e)(i) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act; and (ii) « Possession of cannabis » in breach of Sections 34(1)(b) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

The applicant has, through his Counsel, moved to be admitted to bail and was represented by Me Veeriah of Counsel.

The Enquiring Officer, PS Poligadu, was deputed to resist the present bail application and he deponed under oath.

Case for the Respondent

Facts and Circumstances:

The Enquiring Officer deponed as to the facts and circumstances of the case, stating that on the 8th April 2026, ADSU officers searched the applicant’s dwelling house and premises and secured therefrom 0.95 grams of suspected cannabis as well as six suspected cannabis plants of various heights.

Page 2

According to the Enquiring Officer, the total value of the suspected drugs is Rs 31,425.

Grounds:

The Enquiring Officer put forward the only ground upon which the respondent is resisting the present application for bail, namely the risk of reoffending.

Elaborating on the risk of reoffending, the Enquiring Officer stated that the facts and circumstances of the case, the number of suspected cannabis plants secured and the way the plants were cared for indicate that the applicant has engaged himself in the drugs business which is a lucrative one. The police therefore believes that if he is granted bail, the applicant will reoffend to enrich himself easily. The applicant is borne on record (Doc X1).

Status of the enquiry:

The Enquiring Officer gave evidence to the effect that the enquiry is short of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Nature of the evidence:

It stems out of the Enquiring Officer’s testimony that there is direct evidence against the applicant. The applicant gave a statement in which he admitted to the evidence against him.

The Enquiring Officer was duly cross-examined and confirmed that the applicant has a one year-old child and is the sole breadwinner of his family. He also confirmed that the applicant has a fixed place of abode and is in gainful employment.

Case for the Applicant:

The applicant, from the dock, explained his personal circumstances and promised to abide by all bail conditions.

Page 3 The Law

While Section 3 of the Bail Act provides for a right to release on bail, Section 4(1) of the Bail Act provides for the grounds upon which a Court may refuse to release a defendant or a detainee on bail. Section 4(2) of the Bail Act further provides for the factors to be considered by the Court in deciding whether or not to refuse bail.

In the case of Hurnam Devendranath v The State [2004] PRV 53, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, citing with approval Noordally v Attorney-General [1986] MR 204, enshrined the principle according to which « the rule is that a suspect should remain at large, his detention on grounds of suspicion the exception ».

The Supreme Court, in the case of Labonne J V v Director Of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2005] SCJ 38, found that « the two conflicting interests which the law of bail seeks to reconcile are, on the one hand, the need to safeguard the necessary respect for the liberty of the citizen viewed in the context of the presumption of innocence, and, on the other hand, the need to ensure that society and the administration of justice are reasonably protected against serious risks which might materialise in the event that the detainee is really the criminal which he is suspected to be. »

In the case of Maloupe M.G. v The District Magistrate Of Grand Port [2000] SCJ 223, the Supreme Court explained the rationale of the law of bail at pre-trial stage as follows:

« The rationale of the law of bail at pre-trial stage is, accordingly, that a person should normally be released on bail if the imposition of the conditions reduces the risks referred to above – i.e. risk of absconding, risk to the administration of justice, risk to society – to such an extent that they become negligible having regard to the weight which the presumption of innocence should carry in the balance. When the imposition of the above conditions is considered to be unlikely to make any of the above risks negligible, then bail is to be refused. »

A Court hearing an application for bail therefore has to undertake a two-stage assessment. It should firstly assess the risks warranting an objection to bail. Should those risks be substantiated, the imposition of conditions to reduce the risks to a

Page 4 negligible level should thereafter be considered. Bail should be refused only in the event that the imposition of conditions would be unlikely to make the risks negligible.

In assessing the risks warranting an objection to bail, the Court has a duty consider all evidence put before it which would tend to increase or reduce the likelihood of the risks materialising. Indeed, in the case of Deelchand V v The Director Of Public Prosecutions And Others [2005] SCJ 215, the Supreme Court described the balancing exercise to be undertaken by the Court as follows: « It stands to reason that the decision-making process in relation to bail will call for a balancing exercise where all relevant facts have to be given due weight in the balance either in favour of release on bail (where they tend to reduce the likelihood of one of the relevant risks materialising) or in favour of refusal of bail (where they tend to increase the likelihood of one of the relevant risks materialising). »

The Supreme Court, in the case of Deelchand (supra), further ruled that « the risk of offending must be a real one, and that there must be adequate reasons to explain its existence. » The factors which may be considered when assessing the risk of reoffending are the criminal record of the Applicant, the nature of the offence he is suspected to have committed, the sentence expected in case of conviction, the extent to which the suspected offence is lucrative, the connection between the offence charged and the offence feared, the likely consequences of reoffending, the character of the applicant and the nature of the evidence against him.

Analysis

A Court undertaking the two-stage assessment has to address two questions. Firstly, does the evidence put before the Court substantiate the risks warranting an objection to bail? Should the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, secondly, will the imposition of conditions reduce those risks to a negligible level?

In undertaking the two-stage assessment, I pay due regard to the fact that while the Enquiring Officer gave evidence under oath and was duly cross-examined, the applicant elected to make a statement from the dock, thereby not exposing himself to cross-examination.

Assessment of the nature of the evidence

Page 5

I consider that the nature of the evidence against the applicant at pre-trial stage is in the form of real evidence of suspected cannabis plants as well as suspected cannabis secured from his premises. I note that no evidence of any tools, paraphernalia and money suspected to be proceeds of drugs further secured from the applicant or from his premises has been adduced. I however bear in mind that the applicant has admitted to the evidence against him and made a full confession in the present matter.

In light of the above and of the real evidence, I find the nature of the evidence against the applicant at pre-trial stage in respect of the present provisional information to be reliable.

Risk of reoffending:

The evidence of the Enquiring Officer regarding the risk of reoffending is based on the facts and circumstances of the case and lucrativeness of the drugs business.

The evidence before me is to the effect that the applicant has one recent previous conviction for a drug related offence. I bear in mind that as per the applicant’s own admissions, he is the sole breadwinner of his family and the evidence before me also shows that his wife and young child are under his care. I consider that as the applicant is not a stranger to drug offences and has financial obligations in respect of his family, the risk that he may be lured by the lucrativeness of the drugs business and reoffend is real and plausible.

The evidence before me is further to the effect that suspected cannabis in two different forms namely, plants of various heights and leaf matter, altogether valued at a non- negligible amount, have been secured from the applicant’s premises. I reiterate my previous conclusion in respect of the nature of the evidence against the applicant at pre-trial stage. Bearing again in mind the lucrativeness of the drugs business, I find that the nature of the evidence against the applicant, coupled with the amount and value of suspected dangerous drugs secured weigh heavily in the balance in favour of increasing the likelihood of the risk of reoffending materialising.

In light of the above, I find that the risk of reoffending has been substantiated.

The balancing exercise

Page 6

Having found that the risk reoffending has been substantiated, I now have to assess whether the imposition of conditions will reduce the said risk to a negligible level. Among the risk-reducing conditions which may be contemplated, the Supreme Court in the case of Deelchand (supra) found that « Security appears applicable to all the risks as it may be an incentive to the applicant to appear for trial, to behave whilst on bail and to refrain from interfering with witnesses, or tampering with evidence. » The imposition of appropriate reporting conditions would also provide police supervision over the applicant.

I bear in mind that the applicant is not on bail and there is no evidence of him having breached bail conditions in the past.

Conclusion

In light of the above, I find that a combination of bail conditions will reduce the risk of reoffending to a negligible level. I therefore order that the applicant be admitted to bail on the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall furnish a surety of Rs 15,000; (ii) The applicant shall enter into a recognisance of Rs 40,000; (iii) The applicant has to reside at a fixed address which he shall provide to the police; and (iv) The applicant shall report to the police station nearest to his place of abode once every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday between 06.00 hours and 20.00 hours.

A Dhunnoo (Miss) District Magistrate This 16th April 2026