{"id":919166,"date":"2026-05-18T11:05:40","date_gmt":"2026-05-18T09:05:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/"},"modified":"2026-05-18T11:05:40","modified_gmt":"2026-05-18T09:05:40","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 18 – Police v Lalljee Pritvi"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Police v Lalljee Pritvi<\/p>\n

2026 MOK 18<\/p>\n

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA<\/p>\n

Provisional Cause No: 314\/26<\/p>\n

In the matter of: POLICE v\/s LALLJEE PRITVEE RULING 1. The applicant stands provisionally charged for the offence of Attempt at Murder, in breach of sections 2 and 45 of the Interpretation General Clauses Act and sections 216, 217 and 222 of the Criminal Code coupled with section 22(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, for having on or about the 07 th of April 2026 at Bagatelle, criminally, willfully and of his malice aforethought and with premeditation attempted to kill one Aanshinee Behari, which said attempt was manifested by a commencement of execution and which had failed in its effect through circumstances independent of the will of the accused.<\/p>\n

2. The applicant, moved before this Court through his counsel, to be admitted to bail.<\/p>\n

3. The prosecution objected on the following grounds:<\/p>\n

(i) risk of reoffending; and (ii) risk of interfering with witnesses.<\/p>\n

4. At the outset the enquiring officer, SI Raymond (the \u2018EO\u2019) averred that on the 07 th of April 2026, at PMOC Hospital, the declarant stated that on the same date at around 09.40hrs, she was sitting in a car bearing registration number 5661 LZ 21 Honda<\/p>\n

Vezel, of Khaki colour, which was parked in the parking lot of Bagatelle and she was on the phone. The declarant explained that suddenly, someone, without expecting, opened the front door of the vehicle on the left side where she was seated and violently hit her several times with a saber with force on her left leg and hand.<\/p>\n

5. According to the EO, the declarant identified the person as being the applicant present in Court and claimed that the applicant uttered the following words to her while hitting her \u201cMo pou touye toi\u201d and the declarant thought she was about to get killed.<\/p>\n

6. The EO further expatiated that despite the declarant\u2019s shouts in pain and for help, she continued to get hit by the saber and lost a lot of blood. Meanwhile people came to help her and the applicant left the premises.<\/p>\n

7. The EO averred that the declarant\u2019s sister-in-law, Ms Anishta Sookaye came on the premises and brought her to PMOC hospital. It is the contention of the EO that the applicant was severely injured on her leg and on her right hand as a result of which a delicate surgery had to be performed.<\/p>\n

8. With regards to the nature of evidence the EO averred that there is direct evidence, that is the declarant identified the applicant and there is digital evidence, namely the video camera which recorded the alleged incident. Furthermore, the applicant admitted that he premeditated and watched out for the victim to inflict the wounds on her.<\/p>\n

9. When questioned about the status of the enquiry, the EO confirmed that the enquiry is still ongoing and documents are missing such as MLR, FSL report, PF 58, 58 A, 58 B, IT report and the applicant has to be confronted to the said documents.<\/p>\n

10. The EO substantiated the grounds of objection as follows:<\/p>\n

Risk of reoffending<\/p>\n

10.1 The applicant is on bail for a case of breach of ICTA and he is a great danger to<\/p>\n

the victim\u2019s family inasmuch as he can cause any harm to any member of the victim\u2019s family and to the victim. 10.2 The EO explained that the applicant has constantly brought a harassment campaign against his ex girlfriend, Ms Anishta Sookaye, who is the sister in law of the declarant and a member of the family of the declarant thus showing a true hatred towards the declarant\u2019s family.<\/p>\n

10.3 The EO claimed that since February 2026, the ex girlfriend of the applicant Ms Anishta Sookaye made several declarations at St Pierre police station with respect to harassments and threats as well as intimidation by the applicant against the declarant\u2019s family through social media platforms, telecommunication devices which targets the family of the declarant. 10.4 The EO listed the declarations made against the applicant, including threats using threatening words to the niece of the declarant by stating the following words \u201cMo p fini dire tor la, sois Anishta ou Aliya so 1 cot\u00e9 la main ek cot\u00e9 lipied pu coup\u00e9 1 \u201d. 10.5 The EO detailed the several depositions made at St Pierre police station by Mrs Sookaye.<\/p>\n

10.6 The EO explained that the degree of violence against the declarant shows clearly the violent character of the applicant and if the victim was not brought to hospital on time, she would have died. 10.7 The police believes that if applicant is released on bail, he will reoffend due to the hatred and the bitterness he has against the declarant and her family. 10.8 The applicant is borne on record for a case of Rogue and Vagabond and is on bail.<\/p>\n

Risk of interfering with witnesses<\/p>\n

10.9 The applicant has a relationship with the declarant\u2019s sister-in-law, Ms Sookaye whereby she is a witness in the present matter and if released on bail, the applicant may influence her with respect to her testimony given to the police and may prevent her from giving any evidence in Court. 10.10 The declarant also gave a declaration and if applicant is released on bail, he will be able to threaten the declarant to withdraw her case and not to testify in any<\/p>\n

1 OB 776\/2026 2 Page 14 to 15 of the Court records 3 Doc X and Doc PPU refer<\/p>\n

eventual prosecution. 10.11 The applicant has continuously during the past months threatened and intimidated the family of the declarant as per the declaration of Mrs Sookaye.<\/p>\n

11. The EO was duly cross examined during which the following salient features were borne out:<\/p>\n

11.1 The EO maintained that based on the facts the declarant obtained several blows and the EO did not agree that it was only 3 blows as questioned by learned counsel for the applicant; 11.2 The applicant already gave his defence; 11.3 The EO did not agree that the applicant did not hit with the sharp edge of the saber based on the injuries of the declarant; 11.4 The police has not yet obtained the PF 58 documents; 11.5 The victim lost a lot of blood and if no emergency treatment was given, she could have lost her life; 11.6 The EO agreed that the applicant had the opportunity to kill the declarant but maintained that if there was no intervention from people present when the declarant shouted for help, she would have received other blows; 11.7 The EO maintained that there is digital evidence and direct evidence; 11.8 The EO maintained that Anishta and Aliya may be victims of physical violence and in all the OB entries he listed, the enquiry is still ongoing; 11.9 The EO denied that the grounds of objection are mere apprehensions; 11.10 The EO stated that the previous conviction of the applicant is not related to the present offence but shows the character of the applicant; and 11.11 The EO maintained that the risks are strong probabilities.<\/p>\n

12. The applicant from the dock stated that he will abide by any conditions of the Court if released on bail and that he lives with his father who is old and sick and that he does everything in his house to look after his father.<\/p>\n

13. The applicant stated that he is a planter.<\/p>\n

14. I have duly considered the present application, the objections thereto coupled with the submissions on behalf of both parties, hereby the present ruling.<\/p>\n

15. I have taken into account the constitutional right to liberty of the applicant as enshrined in section 5(3) of the Constitution and section 4(1) of the Bail Act which provides that the aim behind the conditional release of an offender is to ensure that a suspect (a) appears for his trial in the event that he is eventually prosecuted; (b) does not harm the society whilst being at large if he or she is the author of the alleged offence; and (c) does not in any way interfere with the course of justice. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive.<\/p>\n

16. I have also taken note of the rationale of bail law which has been established throughout authoritative case law , to the effect that the \u201c[\u2026] 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\u2026 to such an extent that they become negligible having regard to the weight with which the presumption of innocence should carry in the balance\u201d.<\/p>\n

17. Accordingly, a balancing exercise has to be made, by considering all the evidence on record, between (a) the need to safeguard the necessary freedom of liberty of a suspect when viewed in the context of the presumption of innocence, thus favouring the release of the applicant on bail; and (b) on the other hand the need to ensure that the society as well as the administration of justice are necessarily protected against serious risks which may materialise if the detainee is the alleged offender, therefore favouring the refusal of bail.<\/p>\n

18. It is apposite to note that the principles underlying the provisions of the Bail Act 1999 and the Constitution bear similar provisions to the following international, regional and comparative law instruments that are not legally binding on Mauritius, notably the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 7(5) of the American Convention on Human Rights which all guarantee the presumption of innocence.<\/p>\n

19. Therefore, similarly, the provisions of the Bail Act can be described as being a procedural right which \u201centrenches the effect of the presumption of innocence at the<\/p>\n

4 Maloupe v the DM of Grand Port ipo DPP [2000 SCJ 223, MR 264]<\/p>\n

pre-trial stage of the criminal trial process and safeguards the liberty of accused persons\u201d.<\/p>\n

20. Now, bearing in mind that under our Constitution, \u201c[\u2026] liberty is the rule and detention is the exception\u201d, 6 I shall assess the evidence of the EO pertaining to each ground to determine whether the imposition of conditions can reduce the risks to a minimum level.<\/p>\n

21. However, first and foremost, it is important to note that with respect to the nature of evidence as related by the EO, indeed there is direct and concrete evidence against the applicant which has neither been disputed nor challenged by learned counsel for the applicant, notably:<\/p>\n

(i) the identification of the applicant by the declarant; (ii) the fact that the declarant was indeed hit with a saber by the applicant more than once, notwithstanding the number of times she was hit or whether she was hit by the sharp edge of the saber; (iii) the fact that the alleged incident has been recorded by a video camera; and (iv) the fact that the applicant has admitted to the fact that he has premeditated his act.<\/p>\n

22. As matters stand, the nature of evidence itself is such that it is that it satisfies the legal test for reasonable grounds for suspicion which a police officer must satisfy before they can stop and detain an individual 7 , and I am of the opinion that they do amount to concrete and direct evidence that tilts in favour of the prosecution in connection with the grounds of objection.<\/p>\n

23. Bearing the nature of evidence in mind and the stage at which the enquiry has reached, I shall assess each ground of objection.<\/p>\n

5 R v Antic [2017] 1 S.C.R 509 at paragraph 1; R v Hall[2002] 3 S.C.R 309 at paragraph 13; R v Oland [2017] 1 S.C.R 250 at paragraph 34<\/p>\n

6 Chrishna Ramgati v The Honourable Ag District Magistrate of the Bail and Remand Court & anor [2022 SCJ 373] 7 Note 402, Halsbury's Laws of England\/Police and Investigatory Powers (Volume 84 (2019), paras 1\u2013394; Volume 84A (2019), paras 395\u2013831)\/8. Arrest, Detention, Entry, Search and Seizure\/(2) Stop and Search\/402. Reasonable grounds for suspicion.<\/p>\n

24. In relation to the risk of reoffending, as held in the case of Deelchand v DPP 8 , \u201c[\u2026] the risk of offending must be a real one, and that there must be adequate reasons to explain its existence\u201d.<\/p>\n

25. The denial of bail for reasons of likelihood of reoffending has been described as \u201c[\u2026]a sufficiently narrow circumstance because bail is denied only for those with a \u201csubstantial likelihood\u201d of committing an offence, and only where this likelihood endangers public safety. The circumstance is narrowed further by the requirement that the detention be not simply convenient, but necessary for public safety\u201d<\/p>\n

26. The circumstances leading to the arrest and detention of the applicant coupled with the nature of evidence is of utmost important in considering the risk of reoffending.<\/p>\n

27. The nature of the offence for which the applicant is suspected to have committed is one of attempt at murder towards the declarant. The EO has testified that whilst being on bail for a case of breach of ICTA, the applicant has been arrested and provisionally charged for the present offence.<\/p>\n

28. Indeed, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, the nature of the offences in both cases are not related, however the Court cannot ignore the fact that the applicant did not respect the conditions for his release on bail, that is, not getting involved in any activity which strikes illegality from a penal point of view 10 thus not harming the society whilst being at large and not interfering with the course of justice.<\/p>\n

29. I note that the EO has listed the OB references where several declarations have been recorded by the declarant\u2019s family, namely her sister-in-law, for threats, intimidation, harassment and breach of ICTA. I further note the relationship between the applicant, the declarant and declarant\u2019s family, more specifically the ex-girlfriend of the applicant. I further note the bad blood between the applicant and the declarant as well as the declarant\u2019s family based on the evidence of the EO and same has not been disputed during the bail hearing.<\/p>\n

30. It transpires from the cross examination of the EO by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n

8 [2005 SCJ 215] 9 R v Morales [1992] 3 S.C.R 711 10 DPP v Louis Jimmy Marthe [2013 SCJ 386a] 11 Section 4(1) of Bail Act<\/p>\n

applicant, that the applicant has admitted having premeditated the act of violence towards the declarant.<\/p>\n

31. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the nature of the evidence against the applicant is strong and such that it has a direct bearing on his risk of reoffending.<\/p>\n

32. The evidence of the EO during the proceedings to sustain the risk of re-offending as well as the nature of evidence are adequate reasons to explain the risk of re- offending. I therefore find that the risk of re-offending has been established.<\/p>\n

33. As regards to the risk of interfering with witnesses, I shall refer to the following extract which I find pertinent namely in Deelchand v DPP 12 which provides that where there is a risk of interference with witnesses, namely:<\/p>\n

\u201c (a) the defendant has allegedly threatened the witnesses; (b) the defendant has allegedly made admissions that he intends to do so;<\/p>\n

(c) the witnesses have a close relationship with the defendant, for example in cases of domestic violence or incest;<\/p>\n

(d) the witnesses are especially vulnerable, for example where they live near the defendant or are children or elderly people;<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

(f) it is believed the defendant will intimidate or bribe jurors;<\/p>\n

(g) other suspects are still at large and may be warned by the defendant\u201d<\/p>\n

34. I also take note of the principle that provides that \u201c[\u2026] It would be preposterous to hold the view that in each and every application for bail it would suffice that an enquiry 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<\/p>\n

12 n 8, where reference was made to Neil Corre in his extract from the book \u201c Bail In Criminal Proceedings\u201d [1990]<\/p>\n

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 13 (emphasis added).<\/p>\n

35. The witnesses which the prosecution have identified and with which the Court is faced with are (i) the positive identification of the applicant by the declarant; (ii) the declarant\u2019s sister-in-law who is the ex-girlfriend of the applicant who has made several declarations against the application as aforementioned and who has yet to be interviewed; and (iii) the members of the declarant\u2019s family whose identities are known to the police.<\/p>\n

36. Accordingly, there is evidence that the applicant has been in contact with witnesses identified by the police prior to the alleged offence, while he was on bail for an offence for which he is suspected having committed towards his ex-girlfriend, one of the identified witnesses. There is evidence of vulnerable witnesses and of the close relationship between the applicant and the aforesaid identified witnesses including evidence that the applicant knows the location and whereabouts of the witnesses.<\/p>\n

37. Therefore, I find that the reasons and evidence provided by the prosecution are satisfactory to establish the probability of interference with those witnesses by the applicant and to satisfy the Court that there is a serious risk of interference with the said witnesses.<\/p>\n

38. I have considered whether the risks enunciated by the prosecution can be minimized by the imposition of conditions upon the applicant. 14 I have taken note of the testimony of the applicant made from the dock to that effect in parallel with the right of the liberty of the applicant whilst at the same time analyzing the parameters of any prejudice or danger which may impact the society, including the declarant, should the applicant be released on bail.<\/p>\n

39. However, I find that, given the strong nature of evidence, the relationship between the applicant and the declarant, including the circumstances in which the alleged offence occurred, I am of the view that no condition may be imposed to render the<\/p>\n

13 Deelchand v DPP, n5 14 Maloupe v District Magistrate of Grand Port; Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Ors<\/p>\n

risk of re-offending and of interfering with witnesses to be negligible.<\/p>\n

40. The Court is not oblivious to the high possibility of the applicant defying any conditions imposed upon him to put in practice his threats the moreso that the evidence clearly shows that he was on bail at the time of the alleged offence. I find that the imposition of a heavy security, regular reporting to the police stations, curfew orders or not to contact specified witnesses and\/or potential witnesses, will act as no deterrent in the present case.<\/p>\n

41. Based on the aforementioned, I find that the risk to society outweighs the applicant\u2019s right to be released on bail. In the circumstances, I uphold the ground of objections raised by the prosecution. The present bail application is accordingly set aside. However, the prosecuting authorities are urged to complete the enquiry within the shortest delay possible.<\/p>\n

[ Delivered by: Ms Bibi Azna BHOLAH, District Magistrate] [ Delivered on: 05 May 2026]<\/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 Lalljee Pritvi 2026 MOK 18 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA Provisional Cause No: 314\/26 In the matter of: POLICE v\/s LALLJEE PRITVEE RULING 1. The applicant stands provisionally charged for the offence of Attempt at Murder, in breach of sections 2 and 45 of the Interpretation General Clauses Act and sections 216, 217 and 222 of the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[92703],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[92727,8066,92728],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-919166","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-ms-b-a-bholah-district-magistrate","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-lalljee","kji_keyword-police","kji_keyword-pritvi","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 5 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 18 - Police v Lalljee Pritvi - 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-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/\" \/>\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, 5 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 18 - Police v Lalljee Pritvi\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Police v Lalljee Pritvi 2026 MOK 18 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA Provisional Cause No: 314\/26 In the matter of: POLICE v\/s LALLJEE PRITVEE RULING 1. The applicant stands provisionally charged for the offence of Attempt at Murder, in breach of sections 2 and 45 of the Interpretation General Clauses Act and sections 216, 217 and 222 of the...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/\" \/>\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=\"16 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-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 18 - Police v Lalljee Pritvi - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-18T09:05:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\\\/#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, 5 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 18 – Police v Lalljee Pritvi\"}]},{\"@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, 5 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 18 - Police v Lalljee Pritvi - 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-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 18 - Police v Lalljee Pritvi","og_description":"Police v Lalljee Pritvi 2026 MOK 18 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA Provisional Cause No: 314\/26 In the matter of: POLICE v\/s LALLJEE PRITVEE RULING 1. The applicant stands provisionally charged for the offence of Attempt at Murder, in breach of sections 2 and 45 of the Interpretation General Clauses Act and sections 216, 217 and 222 of the...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 5 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 18 - Police v Lalljee Pritvi - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-18T09:05:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-5-mai-2026-2026-mok-18-police-v-lalljee-pritvi\/#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, 5 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 18 – Police v Lalljee Pritvi"}]},{"@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\/919166","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=919166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=919166"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=919166"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=919166"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=919166"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=919166"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=919166"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=919166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}