Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 mars 2026, 2026 SAV 51 – K SOBHUN v POLICE

Page 1 K SOBHUN v POLICE

2026 SAV 51

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAVANNE

Provisional Cause No.: 220/26

Kivraj Sobhun Applicant v/s

Police Respondent

Ruling

The applicant stands provisionally charged under three counts of a provisional information dated 20th March 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; (ii) « Drug dealing: possession of cannabis seeds for the purpose of cultivating cannabis plants » in breach of Sections 30(1)(f)(i) and 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act; and (iii) « Possession of cannabis » in breach of Sections 34(1)(b) 47(5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

The applicant moved to be admitted to bail through his Counsel 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 19th March 2026, the police searched the applicant’s dwelling house and

Page 2 premises and secured therefrom 166 suspected cannabis seeds, 0.63 grams of suspected cannabis and 13 suspected cannabis plants cultivated in separate raffia bags.

According to the Enquiring Officer, the value of the suspected drugs is Rs 82,545.

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 quantity of suspected drugs secured, the manner in which the suspected cannabis seeds were concealed and the manner in which the suspected cannabis plants had been cared for, all indicate that the applicant has embarked himself in the drugs business which is lucrative one. The police therefore strongly believes that the applicant will reoffend to enrich himself easily if he is released on bail.

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:

According to the Enquiring Officer, there is direct evidence against the applicant. The applicant is of clean record and is not on bail.

The Enquiring Officer was duly cross-examined and revealed that the applicant has admitted to the seizure of the suspected drugs and to the evidence against him except in relation to the cannabis seeds. He agreed that the applicant is in gainful employment and has a fixed place of abode.

Case for the Applicant:

The applicant, from the dock, 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, suspected cannabis seeds and suspected cannabis secured from his premises. I bear in mind that no evidence of any money suspected to be proceeds of drugs nor tools nor paraphernalia having also been found at the applicant’s premises was adduced. It further stems out of the Enquiring Officer’s testimony that the applicant has partly confessed to the charges under the present provisional information.

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 the lucrativeness of the drugs business.

The evidence before me is to the effect that the applicant is of clean record and is not on bail. This, I find, does not weigh heavily in the balance in favour of increasing the likelihood of the risk of reoffending materialising.

However, the evidence before me is also to the effect that suspected cannabis in three different forms namely, initial seeds, plants of various heights and finally leaf matter, altogether valued at a considerable 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 in mind the lucrativeness of the drug business, I find that the nature of the evidence against the applicant, coupled with the amount and value of suspected dangerous drugs secured from him weigh more 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 30,000; (ii) The applicant shall enter into a recognisance of Rs 60,000; (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 daily between 06.00 hours and 20.00 hours.

A Dhunnoo (Miss) District Magistrate This 30th March 2026