Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 avril 2026, 2026 ROD 14 – Ruling – Jean Christopher Baptiste v Police

1

Ruling – Jean Christopher Baptiste v Police

2026 ROD 14

IN THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

PCN: 43/2026

Jean Christopher Baptiste Applicant v/s Police

Respondent

Ruling

In a provisional information lodged against the applicant, the latter stands charged with the offence of “arson” in breach of section 346 (1) of the Criminal Code. The applicant has moved for bail and he was legally represented by Mr Mooneeapillay. The respondent is resisting the present bail application based on the risk of absconding.

SI Philippe duly deputed by the Commissioner of Police stated that following a declaration by one Miss Malbrook, the partner of the applicant, to the effect that the latter put fire to her house, the applicant was arrested. The applicant has denied the charge and the inquiry has been completed. As per the inquiry, witnesses did not incriminate the applicant. The applicant has no cognate offence as per the record of previous conviction, “Doc X”.

Concerning the risk of absconding, the officer stated that the applicant did not respect the bail conditions imposed upon him by the Court in the past and as such if he is granted bail, he may abscond. The record of previous conviction “Doc X” was referred in that respect whereby the applicant was convicted in the year 2015 for the offence

of “breach of condition of release” and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs 500. Under cross examination, the officer confirmed that the applicant has a fixed place of abode.

After the prosecution closed its case, the applicant from the dock stated that he would abide to all conditions to be imposed by the Court. In determining the present application, the Court has considered the provisions of the Bail Act including the principles of bail as explained in the cases of Neeyamuthkhan v DPP [1999 SCJ 284a], Deelchand v DPP and Others [2005 SCJ 215] and Labonne J v DPP [2005 SCJ 38].

Furthermore, the Court has considered the guidelines expressed in the case of Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Akili Charles No.2 (Trinidad and Tobago) [2022 UKPC 31] whereby it was stated that; ‘‘50. …bail should be refused in cases where there are substantial grounds to believe the accused would abscond or commit further offences if released on bail.’’ (Underlining is mine).

Without delving into the merits of the case, taking into account the elements as elicited by the officer on record, the Court notes that the nature of evidence appears to be weak against the applicant. The officer has stated that the applicant has a fixed place of abode and same is confirmed as per his address in the provisional information. Based on the testimony of the officer, he has failed to sustain the risk of absconding.

After having carried out a balancing exercise between the continued detention of the applicant and the latter’s constitutional right to liberty including the presumption of innocence, I order the applicant to be admitted to bail on the following conditions;

(i) Applicant is to furnish one surety of Rs 10, 000;

(ii) Applicant to enter into a recognizance in his own name in the sum of Rs 50, 000;

(iii) Applicant to report at the nearest police station on Saturday and Sunday from 6am to 6pm;

(iv) Applicant not to leave Rodrigues without the prior permission of the Court of Rodrigues;

Devinash Oozageer District Magistrate 30 th April 2026