{"id":1059557,"date":"2026-06-07T17:45:20","date_gmt":"2026-06-07T15:45:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/"},"modified":"2026-06-07T17:45:25","modified_gmt":"2026-06-07T15:45:25","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 2 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 16 – Police v Ashvin Veerappen"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Police v Ashvin Veerappen<\/p>\n

2020 BRC 16<\/p>\n

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

Provisional Cause Number 112\/2020<\/p>\n

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

Police<\/p>\n

v\/s<\/p>\n

Ashvin Veerappen<\/p>\n

RULING<\/p>\n

The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of DRUG DEALING (POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINIODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING) in breach of Section 30 (1) (f) (ii), 47 (5) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended by Sec 4 (a) of Act 30\/2008 coupled with GN 93\/2019.The Applicant has moved that he be admitted to bail and he stood inops consilii at the bail hearing. The case for the prosecution was conducted by Police Prosecutor and 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 sole ground of Risk of re-offending.<\/p>\n

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

Inspector Nundhoo, 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 ground. He went on to explain that on 18 th January 2020 information was received that Applicant was selling drugs at morcellement Rose, Phoenix and on spot upon seeing ADSU officers, the Applicant put a parcel in his mouth to hide it. Upon retrieving the parcel, officers saw that the parcel had a black insulating tape and that the parcel contained a certain quantity of leaf matter suspected to be synthetic cannabinoids. The officer stated that the value<\/p>\n

of the drug was Rs 12, 000 and that the Applicant had confessed to the charge of possession but denied the averment of drug dealing. The court was informed that Applicant had a clean record and he was not on bail for other offences and that the FSL report had not yet been obtained so that enquiry could be completed. The enquiry officer was not cross examined and the case was 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 stated that he was a student and a victim of drugs. He further stated that he would comply with all bail conditions imposed by the Court and the case was then closed for the Defence.<\/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<\/p>\n

(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; (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<\/p>\n

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 sole ground of objection raised by the prosecuting authorities, there is no doubt that drug trafficking being a lucrative business, there is a serious risk of the applicant being tempted to commit further offences. The more so when one considers the value of the drugs recovered. I note that the main enquiry failed to sustain his ground of objection and since Applicant has a clean record and has not re-offended whilst on bail, I find that the sole ground of objection raised by the police amounts to being a mere apprehension. I have also taken into account the Applicant\u2019s statement from the dock that he is prepared to abide by any conditions that the Court may impose.<\/p>\n

For all the above mentioned reasons, I find that this is a proper case for the present Court to exercise its discretion to grant bail to the Applicant as the ground of objection appears to be a mere apprehension by the prosecuting authorities. I therefore grant bail to the Applicant on the following conditions:<\/p>\n

(1) Applicant is to furnish a surety in cash of Rs 30, 000 (2) Applicant is to enter into a recognizance of Rs 100, 000 (3) Applicant is to report to the nearest police station daily from 06 00 hours to 18 00 hours (4) Applicant should reside at a fixed place of abode (5) Applicant is not to re-offend whilst on bail<\/p>\n

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) Ag. Senior District Magistrate This 2 nd 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 Ashvin Veerappen 2020 BRC 16 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 112\/2020 In the matter of: Police v\/s Ashvin Veerappen RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of DRUG DEALING (POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINIODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING) in breach of Section 30 (1) (f) (ii), 47 (5) (a) of the Dangerous…<\/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":[95766,8066,128213],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1059557","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-ashvin","kji_keyword-police","kji_keyword-veerappen","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 2 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 16 - Police v Ashvin Veerappen - 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-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/\" \/>\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, 2 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 16 - Police v Ashvin Veerappen\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Police v Ashvin Veerappen 2020 BRC 16 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 112\/2020 In the matter of: Police v\/s Ashvin Veerappen RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of DRUG DEALING (POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINIODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING) in breach of Section 30 (1) (f) (ii), 47 (5) (a) of the Dangerous...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-07T15:45:25+00:00\" \/>\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=\"7 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-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 2 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 16 - Police v Ashvin Veerappen - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-07T15:45:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-07T15:45:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\\\/#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, 2 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 16 – Police v Ashvin Veerappen\"}]},{\"@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, 2 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 16 - Police v Ashvin Veerappen - 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-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 2 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 16 - Police v Ashvin Veerappen","og_description":"Police v Ashvin Veerappen 2020 BRC 16 IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT Provisional Cause Number 112\/2020 In the matter of: Police v\/s Ashvin Veerappen RULING The Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of DRUG DEALING (POSSESSION OF SYNTHETIC CANNABINIODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING) in breach of Section 30 (1) (f) (ii), 47 (5) (a) of the Dangerous...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","article_modified_time":"2026-06-07T15:45:25+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 2 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 16 - Police v Ashvin Veerappen - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-07T15:45:20+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-07T15:45:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-2-mars-2020-2020-brc-16-police-v-ashvin-veerappen\/#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, 2 mars 2020, 2020 BRC 16 – Police v Ashvin Veerappen"}]},{"@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\/1059557","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=1059557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1059557"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1059557"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1059557"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1059557"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1059557"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1059557"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1059557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}