Supreme Court of Mauritius, 14 avril 2026, 2026 BMB 27 – Police v Jaisen CALLATCHAN

Police v Jaisen CALLATCHAN

2026 BMB 27

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF BLACK RIVER In the matter of: Cause number: p319/2026 Police V Jaisen CALLATCHAN BAIL RULING 1. The present provisional charge against the applicant is one of swindling under section 330 of the Criminal Code.

2. The applicant has moved to be admitted to bail.

3. The respondent called upon the enquiry officer PS Beeharee to expatiate on the ground of objection, namely: risk of reoffending.

4. The enquiry officer related that a declaration was reported by the complainant on the 20 th March 2026. In the declaration, it was reported that the applicant met with the declarant where the applicant made the declarant believe that he was the owner of three pleasure crafts and that he owned the company J & K Tours and Travel. The applicant proposed the declarant a trip to ile aux benitiers against a payment of Rs12,000 which included the tour and for foods and drinks. On the 15 th March 2026, when the declarant reached the embarkation point, the applicant was not there and through whatsapp the applicant postponed the trip for the 16 th March 2026. On that day, again the trip was reported to the 17 th March 2026 due to bad weather. On the 17 th March 2026, the tour was again reported and no date was communicated. The declarant thus asked for a refund and the applicant refused to refund the money.

5. In relation to the risk of reoffending, the enquiry officer stated that during the applicant is on bail for similar offences, of which two embezzlement cases and one swindling case. He begged leave to produce the memo from the prosecutor’s office [Doc PPO]

6. In relation to the nature of the evidence, the applicant admitted that he never owned three pleasure crafts nor did he own any company. He however denied the charge against him. Police have also secured a receipt for the payment made by the declarant. In relation to the status of the enquiry, police are awaiting correspondences from the Registrar of Companies and the Tourism Authority.

7. The enquiry officer was not cross-examined.

8. The applicant stated from the dock that the tourist in fact did participate in the tour on the 18 th March 2026 but that the applicant was not present during the tour. He begged for excuse.

9. I have considered the evidence elicited from the enquiry officer. In carrying out the balancing exercise between the alleged risks posed to society and the administration of justice in granting the Applicant bail and the Applicant’s rights to his fundamental rights to liberty and presumption of innocence, the Court is aware that the ground of objection has to be viewed in conjunction with the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the offence and the record of the Applicant.

10. The testimony of the enquiry officer has gone unrebutted so that whatever the enquiry officer has stated about the risk of reoffending has remained unshaken. Indeed, when the court has considered the Doc PPO, it shows that the applicant is implicated in three other dishonesty offences for which he is already on bail. According to the Bail Act, bail may be refused where the applicant, having been released on bail, has committed an act which constitutes an offence punishable by a sentence other than a fine. Reference is made to section 4(1)(c)(i) of the enactment.

11. The fact that the applicant was already on bail tends to show that bail conditions in the past have had little effect on him and that the applicant has again been implicated in a dishonesty offence.

12. With that in mind, and taking into account the presumption of innocence and the unrebutted evidence of the enquiry officer, the court is of the view that the risk that the applicant may be implicated anew in similar cases is not an exaggeration of the police. The risk of reoffending is substantiated.

13. Having considered that the risk of reoffending has been substantiated, it is also incumbent upon this court to consider if conditions can be imposed to render the risk negligible. I have considered the imposition of a high surety and recognizance and a daily reporting condition so that the applicant does not lose sight of the fact that he is on judicial supervision, I consider that bail conditions can be imposed and I admit the applicant to bail subject to the following conditions: a. Applicant to furnish a surety by way of bank cheque in the sum of Rs50,000; b. Applicant to enter into a recognizance in the sum of Rs150,000; c. Applicant to report to the police station nearest to his place of abode every day between 6am – 8pm.

M I F NATHIRE Ag Senior District Magistrate This 14 th April 2026