Supreme Court of Mauritius, 27 mars 2024, 2024 BRC 195 — Jeeveeka Lungur v Police

Original District Court (RR) CN: 155/24 – p.1

Jeeveeka Lungur v Police

2024 BRC 195

IN THE BAIL AND REMAND COURT

BRC CN: 799/24 Original District Court (RR) CN: 155/24

In the matter of:- Jeeveeka Lungur Applicant v.

Police Respondent RULING

Applicant stands provisionally charged with the offence of larceny being more than two in number in breach of sections 301(1) and 305(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

At the bail hearing, Applicant was not assisted by Counsel. Inspector Bissessur conducted the case for Respondent. Proceedings were held in Creole. Respondent objected to the bail application on the grounds that Applicant may abscond and reoffend.

Section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Bail Act 1999 (Act 32/1999) [“the Bail Act”] provides that the Court may refuse to release a defendant or a detainee on bail where it is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that the defendant or detainee, if released, is likely to fail to surrender to custody or to appear before a Court as and when required.

Here, the evidence on record shows that Applicant lives together with her father and siblings at Mahatma Gandhi road, Grand Bay. Nevertheless, it transpires from a certificate from the Mauritius Police Force, produced and marked as Doc PPU, that Applicant is on bail in relation to a provisional charge of breach of condition of release lodged since 2022. No details were given as to why there is no main case though two years have lapsed. Applicant, who was unrepresented, did not questioned this piece of evidence. In the circumstances, the risk of absconding cannot be totally ignored.

As regards the risk of reoffending, section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Bail Act provides that a Court may refuse to release a defendant or a detainee on bail where it is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that the defendant or detainee, if released, is likely to commit an offence, other than an offence punishable only by a fine.

Original District Court (RR) CN: 155/24 – p.2

The Supreme Court in Deelchand v The Director of Public Prosecutions and others [2005 SCJ 215] underlined that the risk of offending must be a real one and there must be adequate reasons to explain its existence. The Supreme Court also cited with approval the case of Clooth v Belgium [1991] ECHR 71 (12 December 1991) where it was said that the danger of a serious offence being committed by an applicant whilst on bail should be a plausible one.

In the case at hand, Applicant confessed having committed the offence in the company of her three confederates. As such, the nature of the evidence against Applicant, consisting of direct evidence, appears to be strong.

In addition, Respondent produced a PF 15 to show that Applicant is borne on record. Same was marked as Doc X. It appears from Doc X that Applicant was convicted twice for larceny cases. Doc PPU further shows that she is provisionally charged with another larceny case. Hence, the Court finds the risk of offending plausible.

The rationale of the law of bail at pre-trial stage as explained in Maloupe v District Magistrate of Grand Port i.p.o. Director of Public Prosecutions [2000 SCJ 223] is of relevance. The Supreme Court observed that a person should normally be released on bail if the imposition of the conditions reduces the risk of absconding, risk to the administration of justice, risk to society to such an extent that they become negligible having regard to the weight which the presumption of innocence should carry in the balance; and when the imposition of the conditions is considered to be unlikely to make any of the risks negligible, then bail is to be refused.

In the current circumstances, the Court is of the view that the identified risks can be reduced by the imposition of conditions such that they become negligible having regard to the weight which the presumption of innocence would carry in the balance. The imposition of a surety and a recognisance would be an incentive for Applicant not to offend whilst on bail. In addition, the obligation for Applicant to have a fixed place of residence and to report to the nearest police station would allow the police to monitor her whereabouts.

Besides, the Court notes that Applicant is held in custody since 24.01.2024, she is 22 years old, and there is no indication when exactly a formal charge will be lodged against her.

Consequently, the Court orders that Applicant be released on bail subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions by her:

i. to provide a surety in the sum of Rs.2,000/-; ii. to enter into a recognisance in the sum of Rs.8,000/-; iii. to reside at a fixed place of residence indicated by her to the police; and iv. to report to the police station nearest to her place of residence everyday between 6 am and 6 pm.

Z Cassamally (Dr) District Magistrate

Original District Court (RR) CN: 155/24 – p.3

27.03.2024