{"id":1059233,"date":"2026-06-07T15:31:03","date_gmt":"2026-06-07T13:31:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/"},"modified":"2026-06-07T15:31:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-07T13:31:03","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 27 – Police v Rajendra Raggoo"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Police v Rajendra Raggoo<\/p>\n

2020 BRC 27<\/p>\n

IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT<\/p>\n

Provisional Cause Number 1732\/19 (Pamplemousses) BRC Cause Number 3654\/19<\/p>\n

In the matter of:<\/p>\n

Police<\/p>\n

v\/s<\/p>\n

Rajendra Raggoo<\/p>\n

RULING<\/p>\n

The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of ASSAULT WITH PREMEDITATION in breach of Sections 230 (1) (2) of the Criminal Code. The Applicant has moved that he be admitted to bail and he was represented by Defence Counsel, Me. Trilochun at the bail hearing. The proceedings were held in Creole language for the benefit of the Applicant.<\/p>\n

The Respondent is resisting the motion and is objecting that the Applicant be granted bail on the following grounds:<\/p>\n

(1) Risk of re-offending (2) Risk of tampering with evidence (3) Risk of absconding<\/p>\n

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION<\/p>\n

PS Samynaden, the main enquiry officer was called by the Prosecution and he explained that he had been deputed by the Commissioner of Police to resist the present bail application on the above mentioned grounds. The police officer went on to explain that on 10 th September 2019 at Dream Price Supermarket, three individuals armed with sabre and wood and dressed in black entered the supermarket and assaulted its manager who had to be admitted to the hospital for treatment. The main enquiry officer explained that the victim was seriously assaulted all over and that it was through CCTV footage that three individuals could be identified and arrested. The police officer further stated that the Declarant has identified the Applicant positively as being his aggressor and the latter had confessed to the charge.<\/p>\n

In relation to the 1 st ground of objection, that is the risk of re-offending, the main enquiry officer explained that Applicant was borne on record and was already on bail. Docs A and X were filed accordingly and the officer stated that the police had all the reasons to believe that should Applicant be granted bail, he will re-offend.<\/p>\n

In relation to the 2 nd ground of objection, that is the risk of tampering with evidence, the officer stated that exhibit in this case, that is the sabre and the wood had not been recovered and the police has all the reasons to believe that should Applicant be granted bail, he will tamper with evidence. The main enquiry officer explained that there was direct evidence against the Applicant and that the police enquiry was not completed as a judge\u2019s order was yet to be obtained.<\/p>\n

In relation to the 3 rd ground of objection, that is the risk of absconding, the main enquiry officer explained that based on the gravity of the offence and its severe penalty the police has all the reasons to believe that if granted bail, the Applicant will abscond.<\/p>\n

In cross examination the main enquiry officer confirmed that three people were arrested and one of them has been granted bail. The officer confirmed that Applicant has not absconded before and stated he could not say that Applicant will tamper with evidence but maintained that Applicant could abscond. The case was then closed for the prosecution.<\/p>\n

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE<\/p>\n

The Applicant was explained his Constitutional Rights and he elected to make a statement from the Dock. He went on to state that he would abide by all bail conditions imposed by the court.<\/p>\n

Defence Counsel offered no submission in law or the facts and left the matter in the hands of the Court.<\/p>\n

THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE LAW<\/p>\n

In the case of Hurnam v The State [2005 UKPC 49], the Privy Council held that only section 4(1) (a) of the 1999 Act specifies the core reasons for refusing bail. Individually, they are to be considered to provide a conclusive reason for refusing bail. Section 4(1)(a) of the Bail Act 1999 reads as follows:<\/p>\n

4. Refusal to release on bail<\/p>\n

(1) A Judge or a Magistrate may refuse to release a defendant or a detainee on bail where (a) (a) he is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that the defendant or detainee if released is likely to \u2013 (i) (i) fail to surrender to custody or to appear before a court as and when required (ii) (ii) commit an offence, other than an offence punishable only by a fine not exceeding 1000 rupees (iii) (iii) interfere with witnesses, tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, in relation to him or to any other person.<\/p>\n

Secondly, as regards to paragraphs 4 (1)(b) to (f) of the Bail Act which are not compelling grounds or core reasons per se to deprive an individual of his liberty but, if relevant, the court need to take into account in order to determine the likelihood of the risks listed in section 4(l)(a) to materialise. The section of the Bail Act 1999 provides as follows:<\/p>\n

(1) A Judge or a Magistrate may refuse to release a defendant or a detainee on bail where-<\/p>\n

(b) he is satisfied that the defendant or detainee should be kept in custody – (i) for his own protection; or (ii) in the case of a minor, for his own welfare; (c) the defendant or detainee, having been released on bail, has \u2013 (i) committed an act referred to in paragraph (a); or (ii) breached any other condition imposed on him for his release: (d) the defendant or detainee is charged or is likely to be charged with a serious offence; (e) there is reasonable ground for believing that the defendant or detainee has – (i) given false or misleading information regarding his names or address; or 5 (ii) no fixed place of abode;<\/p>\n

(f) a detainee has failed to comply with section 12(2).<\/p>\n

Thirdly, a set of consideration is provided under section 4(2) of the Bail Act 1999 to assess the likelihood of the risks enumerated under section 4(l) (a) to materialise. This section provides that:<\/p>\n

In making a determination under subsection (1), the Judge or Magistrate shall have regard to such considerations as appear to the Judge or Magistrate to be relevant, including \u2013<\/p>\n

(a) the nature of the offence and the penalty applicable thereto; (b) the character and antecedents of the defendant or detainee; (c) the nature of the evidence available with regard to the offence.<\/p>\n

Hence, the wording of section 4(1) of the Bail Act 1999 makes it clear that release on bail at pretrial stage is the release upon conditions designed to ensure that the suspect:<\/p>\n

(1) appears for his trial, if he is eventually prosecuted; (2) in case he happens to be the author of the offence of which is he suspected, does no further harm to society whilst being at large; and (3) does not interfere with the course of justice, should he be so minded.<\/p>\n

The rationale as to bail was clearly set out in the case of Maloupe v The District Magistrate of Grand Port [2000] SCJ 233, where it was held as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is also trite law that in deciding whether to grant bail to the applicant, a balance must be struck between \u201con 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 reasonable protected against serious risks which might materialise in the event that the detainee is really the criminal which he is suspected to be\u201d [Labonne v. DPP & Anor 2005 SCJ 38]<\/p>\n

RISK OF RE-OFFENDING<\/p>\n

Regarding the first ground of objection, I find that Applicant has committed cognate offences in the past. Doc X on record shows that Applicant has been convicted of 1 cognate offence (blows) in the past and was not on bail when he committed this offence. I have also considered the fact that Applicant has confessed to the present case. I am therefore satisfied that the danger of re offending is \u201cplausible\u201d [as stated in Deelchand v. DPP & Anor (supra) citing Clooth v. Belgium [1991] ECHR 71 (12 December 1991) at para 40].<\/p>\n

I have therefore addressed and applied the two-limbed test as laid down in the case of DEELCHAND V THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND OTHERS (Supra), namely that:<\/p>\n

(i) if the evidence against him appears strong, he is more likely to think he has nothing to lose by re-offending;<\/p>\n

(ii) if the evidence appears weak to him, he will be less likely to take the risk of detection upon re-offending.<\/p>\n

I have assessed an overview of the evidence. (RE: MALOUPE VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF GRAND PORT (2000) MR 64) . In the present case, the Applicant has made a full confession to the charge against him and as confirmed by the main enquiry officer there is real evidence against him. In the case of DOOKHIT S. v THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF PAMPLEMOUSSES, DISTRICT COURT, PAMPLEMOUSSES (2011) SCJ 101, his Lordship laid down as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough the risk of re-offending would necessarily be based on conjecture, the nature of the offence charged and the record of an applicant are useful pointers for a court to decide on this issue\u201d.<\/p>\n

I have therefore taken into account the past records of the Applicant and I have noted that he has not breached any condition of bail in the past. I have borne in mind that although there is a risk of the Applicant re-offending, the Court should consider whether conditions can be imposed on the Applicant to render these risks negligible. (RE: MALOUPE VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF GRAND PORT). An imposition of a heavy security will ensure the Applicant\u2019s appearance before Court and will be an incentive for him not to indulge in any other offence. In the case of DEELCHAND V THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND OTHERS (SUPRA) , the Learned Judge had this to say:<\/p>\n

\u201cSecurity 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\u201d.<\/p>\n

RISK OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE<\/p>\n

With regards to the second ground of objection raised by the police, I have addressed my mind to the charge against the Applicant and the nature of the evidence against him. (RE: MALOUPE VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF GRAND PORT [2000 MR 64]). According to the Information, the Applicant is charged with the offence of Assault with Premeditation, namely that he dealt the Declarant blows with two confederates and the Declarant was seriously injured at both legs, left arm & head. According to the main enquiry officer, it would seem that the police is objecting to the release of the Applicant on the ground that he might tamper with the evidence as exhibit has not been recovered and the judge\u2019s order is still being awaited. I have considered the fact that Applicant has confessed to the charge and according to the Applicant the exhibit was remitted to officers of environment police. However, this fact has not been confirmed by the enquiry officer.<\/p>\n

RISK OF ABSCONDING<\/p>\n

Regarding the third ground of objection for bail, being given the seriousness of the offence and the probable custodial sentence to be imposed should applicant be found guilty, there is no doubt, a serious risk that he may be tempted to abscond. However, this court also has to take into account other factors in deciding whether there is a serious risk of absconding. Indeed, \u201cthe severity of the sentence which the defendant would be likely to incur, if convicted, does not in itself justify the inference that he or she would attempt to evade trial if released from detention\u2026 other factors, especially those relating to the character of the person involved, his morals, his home, his occupation, his assets, his family ties and all kinds of links with the country\u2026 may either confirm the existence of a danger of flight or make it appear so small that it cannot justify detention pending trial.\u201d [As per Deelchand v. The State [2005] SCJ 251 citing Neumeister v. Austria (1968) 1 ECHR 91]<\/p>\n

I have taken into consideration the fact that Applicant has a fixed place of abode and family ties. Moreover, regular reporting to the police station will enable the police to properly monitor the Applicant\u2019s whereabouts and will act as a deterrent for the Applicant from absconding. I therefore find that the Applicant\u2019s right to liberty outweighs any objection raised by the police in support of his continued detention.<\/p>\n

In the circumstances, I set aside the objection raised by the police in this case. I order that the Applicant be released on bail, pursuant to the Bail Act, under the following conditions:<\/p>\n

(1) the Applicant is to furnish a surety in cash in the sum of Rs 40,000 (2) the Applicant is to enter into a recognisance in his own name in the sum of Rs150,000 (3) the Applicant is to reside at a fixed place of abode as indicated by him to the police (4) the Applicant is to report to the police station nearest his place daily between 06 00 hours and 18 00 hours (5) the Applicant is not to commit any offence whilst on bail (6) the Applicant is not to approach the Declarant either directly or indirectly (7) A curfew order is imposed on Applicant. He is to stay indoor daily from 19 00 hours until 05 00 hours<\/p>\n

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) Ag. Senior District Magistrate This 10 th March 2020<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a> · PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Police v Rajendra Raggoo 2020 BRC 27 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 1732\/19 (Pamplemousses) BRC Cause Number 3654\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Rajendra Raggoo RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of ASSAULT WITH PREMEDITATION in breach of Sections 230 (1) (2) of the Criminal Code. The Applicant has moved that he…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[127341],"kji_year":[41198],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[8066,95961,97970],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1059233","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-mrs-bhamini-prayag-rajcoomar-acting-senior-district-magistrate","kji_year-41198","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-police","kji_keyword-raggoo","kji_keyword-rajendra","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 27 - Police v Rajendra Raggoo - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 27 - Police v Rajendra Raggoo\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Police v Rajendra Raggoo 2020 BRC 27 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 1732\/19 (Pamplemousses) BRC Cause Number 3654\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Rajendra Raggoo RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of ASSAULT WITH PREMEDITATION in breach of Sections 230 (1) (2) of the Criminal Code. The Applicant has moved that he...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 27 - Police v Rajendra Raggoo - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-07T13:31:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 27 – Police v Rajendra Raggoo\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 27 - Police v Rajendra Raggoo - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 27 - Police v Rajendra Raggoo","og_description":"Police v Rajendra Raggoo 2020 BRC 27 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 1732\/19 (Pamplemousses) BRC Cause Number 3654\/19 In the matter of: Police v\/s Rajendra Raggoo RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of ASSAULT WITH PREMEDITATION in breach of Sections 230 (1) (2) of the Criminal Code. The Applicant has moved that he...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 27 - Police v Rajendra Raggoo - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-07T13:31:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-mars-2020-2020-brc-27-police-v-rajendra-raggoo\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 27 – Police v Rajendra Raggoo"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/1059233","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1059233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1059233"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1059233"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1059233"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1059233"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1059233"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1059233"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1059233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}