Supreme Court of Mauritius, 31 mars 2026, 2026 LPW 10 – Police v Louis Laurent Benjamin Valeran

Page 1 of 3

Police v Louis Laurent Benjamin Valeran

2026 LPW 10

CN: 7474/25

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

In the matter of –

Police

v/s

Louis Laurent Benjamin Valeran

JUDGMENT

The charge

The Accused stands charged with having, whilst being a person having been released on bail before the Rose Hill District Court in Provisional Cause No. 2584/23, wilfully and unlawfully breached one of the conditions imposed on him for his release on such bail by failing to report to Barkly Police Station on 14 April 2025, in breach of section 22(a)(iv) of the Bail Act.

The Accused had initially pleaded guilty to the charge but was, at the close of the prosecution case, invited to plead not guilty by the Court which he duly did. He was inops consilii.

The case for the Prosecution

The prosecution case relied on –

(a) the testimony under oath of PS Husnoo (Witness 1) who produced the unsworn statement of the Accused; and

(b) a certified copy of Court records in Provisional Cause No. 2584/23 bearing the seal of the ‘Rose Hill District Court’.

The case for the Defence

When explained his rights, the Accused elected to remain silent.

Analysis

I have considered the evidence on record.

Page 2 of 3

The present offence is predicated on a breach of conditions of bail imposed on the Accused. As per the prosecution case, those conditions were imposed in Provisional Cause No. 2584/23 that was lodged before the District Court of Lower Plaines Wilhems. A copy of the proceedings of that case was produced by the prosecution.

I have had a closer look at the document that was produced. As per that document, it would appear that –

(a) the Accused was provisionally charged for an alleged offence of ‘Larceny by person on wages’ before the District Court of Lower Plaines Wilhems;

(b) the charge was lodged on 5 December 2023 and it pertained to an offence allegedly occurring on 19 October 2023;

(c) after spending one week in police custody, the Accused was bailed out upon there being no more police objection to his release on bail;

(d) several conditions were imposed on the Accused upon him being admitted to bail; and

(e) one of those conditions was that the Accused had to report to Barkly Police Station everyday between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.

It would also appear that, on 28 March 2024, when case bearing Provisional Cause No. 2584/23 was called next, the provisional charge was struck out and a main case was lodged against the Accused.

The Court was, however, not favoured with a copy of the proceedings of the main case. In these circumstances, I am unable to draw the irresistible inference that the reporting condition imposed on the Accused subsisted up until 14 April 2025, which is the day when the present offence is alleged to have been committed.

In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been unable to establish a prima facie case against the Accused.

Conclusion

For the reasons mentioned above, being given that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, I dismiss the charge proffered against the Accused.

H. H. A. Rohamally Senior District Magistrate

Page 3 of 3

31 March 2026