{"id":1059357,"date":"2026-06-07T16:16:57","date_gmt":"2026-06-07T14:16:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/"},"modified":"2026-06-07T16:16:57","modified_gmt":"2026-06-07T14:16:57","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 6 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 116 – T Chittasingh v Police"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1 T Chittasingh v Police<\/p>\n

2020 BRC 116<\/p>\n

Provisional Cause Number 951\/19 (Grand Port) BRC Cause Number 2417\/19 THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Talashwar Chittasingh v\/s Police RULING<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/p>\n

1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of drug dealing: possession of synthetic cannabinoids for the purpose of delivering in breach of sections 30 (1)(d)(ii) and 47 (5)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He has been on remand since the 21 st June 2019 and his Counsel, Me Ramdhonee, has moved that he be admitted to bail.<\/p>\n

2. There was a previous bail motion heard on the 02 nd September 2019, which was set aside on the 05 th September 2019. A motion for fresh bail hearing on the ground of delay was made on behalf of the Applicant, which motion was not resisted by the Respondent. The present bail motion was subsequently heard on the 24 th February 2020.<\/p>\n

3. Facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n

On the 20 th June 2019, following information received, the Police searched the Applicant\u2019s house, where he was found in company of one Zuhayre Ahmad, and a plastic sachet, containing thirty foils, each wrapping a certain amount of<\/p>\n

2 suspected synthetic drugs was secured. Upon being questioned, the Applicant stated that one Golto had given him the drugs and the said Zuhayre Ahmad stated that he had brought the Applicant and Golto to Baie du Tombeau the day before, and that Golto went to fetch the drugs parcel. The value of the drugs secured is Rs 9,100 and the Applicant has confessed to the charge. Case for Respondent<\/p>\n

4. PS Vydelingum, of ADSU Rose-Belle, has been deputed by the Commissioner of Police to resist bail in the present case on the following grounds:<\/p>\n

(i) Risk of reoffending (ii) Risk of interference with witnesses<\/p>\n

5. In support of the first ground of objection, PS Vydelingum stated that the Police believe that the Applicant will indulge anew in such transactions, if granted bail, given that the latter is borne on record for twelve cognate offences (Doc X), he has no fixed job and the drugs business is a lucrative one. It came out that the Applicant is not on bail.<\/p>\n

6. As far as the second ground of objection is concerned, it is the contention of the Police that there are two persons involved in the present case, who live in the same locality as the Applicant, and that the latter will interfere with them if he is released on bail.<\/p>\n

7. It came out that the FSL report has been received and needs to be put to the Applicant, and that one month is needed for the case file to be sent to the ODPP.<\/p>\n

8. The main EO was duly cross examined by Learned Counsel.<\/p>\n

Case for the Applicant<\/p>\n

9. From the dock, the Applicant stated that he would abide to all conditions imposed if released on bail.<\/p>\n

The Law<\/p>\n

3 10. I bear in mind the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence and the Constitutional rights of the Applicant to enjoy freedom and liberty.<\/p>\n

11. Section 3 of the Bail Act provides that \u201cNotwithstanding any other enactment and subject to section 4, every defendant or detainee shall be entitled to be released on bail.\u201d<\/p>\n

12. Section 4 (1) of the Bail Act reads as follows:<\/p>\n

A court may refuse to release a defendant or detainee on bail where \u2013<\/p>\n

(a) it is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant or detainee, if released, is likely to \u2013<\/p>\n

(i) fail to surrender to custody or to appear before a Court as and when required;<\/p>\n

(ii) commit an offence, other than an offence punishable only by a fine;<\/p>\n

(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

(b) it is satisfied that the defendant or detainee should be kept in custody \u2013<\/p>\n

(i) for his own protection;<\/p>\n

(ii) in the case of a minor, for his own welfare; or<\/p>\n

(iii) for the preservation of public order;<\/p>\n

(c) the defendant or detainee, having been released on bail, has \u2013<\/p>\n

(i) committed an act referred to in paragraph (a); or<\/p>\n

(ii) breached any other condition imposed on him for his release.<\/p>\n

4 (d) the defendant or detainee is charged or is likely to be charged with a serious offence;<\/p>\n

(e) there is reasonable ground for believing that the defendant or detainee has \u2013<\/p>\n

(i) given false or misleading information regarding his names or address; or<\/p>\n

(ii) no fixed place of abode;<\/p>\n

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

13. Section 4(2) of the Bail Act provides that:<\/p>\n

In considering whether or not to refuse bail on any ground mentioned in subsection (1), the Court shall decide the matter by weighing the interests of society against the right of the defendant or detainee to his liberty and the prejudice he is likely to suffer if he is detained in custody, taking into account every consideration which, in its opinion, is relevant, including \u2013<\/p>\n

(a) the period for which the defendant or detainee has already been in custody since his arrest;<\/p>\n

(b) the nature and gravity of the offence with which the defendant or detainee is or is likely to be charged and the nature and gravity of the penalty which may be imposed on him;<\/p>\n

(c) the character, association, means, community ties and antecedents of the defendant or detainee, including any non-compliance with any condition imposed for his release on bail with respect to any other offence; and<\/p>\n

(d) the nature of the evidence available with regard to the offence with which the defendant is charged.<\/p>\n

14. The rationale as to bail was clearly set out in the authority of Maloupe v The District Magistrate of Grand Port [2000] SCJ 233, where it was held that :<\/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 \u2013 i.e. risk of absconding, risk to the administration of justice, risk to society \u2013 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

15. I bear in mind that the right balance has to be struck between the constitutional right of the Applicant to enjoy freedom and the interest of society at large.<\/p>\n

16. It was held in Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2005) SCJ 215 that \u201cIn all countries where human rights are respected, the function of the law of bail is likely to be the same, being to reconcile, as stated in Labonne v The D.P.P (supra, at para 2.2.), \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 reasonably protected against serious risks which might materialise in the event that the detainee is really a criminal which he is suspected to be.\u201d<\/p>\n

17. In Islam v The Senior District Magistrate Grand Port District Court [2006] SCJ 282 at para 37, it was held that \u201cPre-trial bail is not a form of punishment to any individual. It is a form of partial and temporary restriction of his liberty with a view to disabling him against antisocial behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finding 18. In relation to the first ground of objection, that is the risk of reoffending, considering the value of drugs involved in the present case, the nature of the<\/p>\n

6 evidence against the Applicant, and drug dealing being a lucrative business, I find that there is indeed a high risk that the Applicant might indulge anew in such transactions should he be released on bail. Doc X shows that the Applicant has the propensity to commit the offence at hand. The present ground therefore succeeds after considering the following authorities:<\/p>\n

(a) In Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors [2005] SCJ 215 at para 5.8, it was held that : \u201cThe sentence expected in case of conviction is also a relevant consideration because of the greater risk that the offender may think he has nothing to lose by offending whilst on bail. The extent to which the offences which the applicant is suspected to have committed are lucrative should also be considered as the temptation, in case the applicant is guilty, that he may wish to make as much money as possible whilst on bail, is likely to be greater.\u201d (b) In Islam (Supra) at para 32, it was held that: \u201cThus, somebody who is admitted to bail, who has been able to purchase \u2013 so to speak – his freedom by some monetary condition, walks out of the court- room, free from any type of effective control over his movements or his activities other than presumably reporting to the nearest police station twice a day. In between, where he goes, under whose influence he falls, with whom he associates himself to pursue what design is left to himself.\u201d (c) In Hossen v District Magistrate of Port Louis [1993] MR 9, it was held that : \u201cEveryone knows that the consumption of certain drugs, like any other vice one may think of, is never likely to disappear completely from the face of the planet and that, at times, it may not be reasonable to insist on the detention of suspects of a certain type. But when, on the contrary, we are faced with a proliferation of drug consumption, or a resurgence of this scourge which can only result in the corruption and degradation of the country\u2019s youth in particular, then the Courts have the duty and the responsibility to protect the public against every person who is involved in any activity that is likely to facilitate or encourage the drug trade\u201d.<\/p>\n

19. As far as the second ground of objection is concerned, that is interference with witnesses, it is the contention of the Police that there are two persons<\/p>\n

7 involved in the present case, who live in the same locality as the Applicant, and as such, they believe that the Applicant will interfere with them, if released on bail.<\/p>\n

20. In the case of Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2005) SCJ 215, it was held that: \u201cIt would be preposterous to hold the view that in each and every application for bail, it would suffice that an enquiring officer should express his fear that the applicant would interfere with one or more witnesses for the accused to be denied bail on that ground. To satisfy the court that there is a serious risk of interference with a witness, satisfactory reasons, and appropriate evidence in connection thereof where appropriate, should be given to establish the probability of interference with that witness by the applicant.\u201d The following extract from \u201cBail in Criminal Proceedings\u201d (1990), Neil Corre, was also referred to in the same case as follows: \u201cThe exception\u2019s most common manifestations are in cases where: (a) the defendant has allegedly threatened witnesses; (b) the defendant has allegedly made admissions that he intends to do so; (c) the witnesses have a close relationship with the defendant, for example in cases of domestic violence or incest; (d) the witnesses are especially vulnerable, for example where they live near the defendant or are children or elderly people; (e) it is believed that the defendant knows the location of inculpatory documentary evidence which he may destroy, or has hidden stolen property or the proceeds of crime; (f) it is believed the defendant will intimidate or bribe jurors; (g) other suspects are still at large and may be warned by the defendant The exception does not apply simply because there are further police enquiries or merely because there are suspects who have yet to be apprehended\u201d.<\/p>\n

21. Save and except for the main EO merely stating that the Police believe that the Applicant will interfere with two persons involved in the present case, given that they live in the same locality as the Applicant, no concrete evidence has been ushered in to support such a ground. As such, I find that it is only a mere apprehension on the part of the Police and, therefore, the third ground of objection fails.<\/p>\n

22. Having found that the first ground of objection has been substantiated, this Court<\/p>\n

8 has an inherent duty to assess whether conditions can be imposed to adequately curb the risks identified, so as to render such risks negligible as expounded in the case of Maloupe (Supra). In Deelchand (Supra), it was held that \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

23. The circumstances of the present case are such that no conditions can be imposed to reduce the risks that have been identified. As such, this Court declines to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant and finds that his continued detention is warranted. The present application is, therefore, set aside.<\/p>\n

24. It has been confirmed that the Police needs one month to send the file to the ODPP. As such, the Prosecution should lodge the formal charge against the Applicant as soon as possible, so that he can be tried within a reasonable time as guaranteed by the Constitution.<\/p>\n

25. Based on Section 5 (3) of the Constitution and the observations made by the Court in Islam (Supra) at para 38 (5) and in Hurnam (supra) at para 15, I order that if a formal charge is not lodged against the Applicant by latest the 12 th<\/p>\n

May 2020, the Applicant shall be admitted to bail on the following conditions:<\/p>\n

(a) The Applicant shall furnish a surety of Rs 50,000 in cash;<\/p>\n

(b) The Applicant shall enter into a recognisance of Rs 200,000 (in his own name);<\/p>\n

(c) The Applicant shall reside at a fixed address, which he shall provide to the police;<\/p>\n

(d) The Applicant shall report to the nearest police station to his place of abode everyday, once a day between 06 00 hours and 20 00 hours;<\/p>\n

(e) A curfew order is imposed on the Applicant. The Applicant shall stay at his residential address, as provided to the Police, from 21 00 hours to 05 00 hours on a daily basis. In case of an emergency warranting him to go out, he must contact the Police to inform them of his predicament before<\/p>\n

9 proceeding outside during the hours of curfew and<\/p>\n

(f) The Applicant shall have in his possession a mobile phone in good working condition at all times, which number should be provided to the police, so that he can be contacted as and when required by the police.<\/p>\n

26. The case is fixed Pro-Forma to the 12 th May 2020.<\/p>\n

Shavina Jugnauth (Miss) District Magistrate This 06 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":"

1 T Chittasingh v Police 2020 BRC 116 Provisional Cause Number 951\/19 (Grand Port) BRC Cause Number 2417\/19 THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Talashwar Chittasingh v\/s Police RULING Introduction 1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of drug dealing: possession of synthetic cannabinoids for the purpose of delivering in breach of sections 30 (1)(d)(ii)…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[127162],"kji_year":[41198],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[130152,15757,8066,15594],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1059357","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-ms-shavina-jugnauth-district-magistrate","kji_year-41198","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-chittasingh","kji_keyword-mauritius","kji_keyword-police","kji_keyword-supreme","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 6 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 116 - T Chittasingh v Police - 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-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/\" \/>\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, 6 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 116 - T Chittasingh v Police\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1 T Chittasingh v Police 2020 BRC 116 Provisional Cause Number 951\/19 (Grand Port) BRC Cause Number 2417\/19 THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Talashwar Chittasingh v\/s Police RULING Introduction 1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of drug dealing: possession of synthetic cannabinoids for the purpose of delivering in breach of sections 30 (1)(d)(ii)...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/\" \/>\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=\"12 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-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 6 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 116 - T Chittasingh v Police - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-07T14:16:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\\\/#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, 6 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 116 – T Chittasingh v Police\"}]},{\"@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, 6 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 116 - T Chittasingh v Police - 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-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 6 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 116 - T Chittasingh v Police","og_description":"1 T Chittasingh v Police 2020 BRC 116 Provisional Cause Number 951\/19 (Grand Port) BRC Cause Number 2417\/19 THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT (MAURITIUS) In the matter of:- Talashwar Chittasingh v\/s Police RULING Introduction 1. The Applicant stands charged with the offence of drug dealing: possession of synthetic cannabinoids for the purpose of delivering in breach of sections 30 (1)(d)(ii)...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 6 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 116 - T Chittasingh v Police - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-07T14:16:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-6-mars-2020-2020-brc-116-t-chittasingh-v-police\/#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, 6 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 116 – T Chittasingh v Police"}]},{"@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\/1059357","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=1059357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1059357"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1059357"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1059357"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1059357"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1059357"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1059357"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1059357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}