R v Ildris & Anor (CO 84 of 2023) [2024] SCSC 104 (20 May 2024)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable CO 84/2023 Republic In the matter between: THE REPUBLIC (rep. by Lansinglu Rongmei Benjamin) and DAN CHRISTOPHER TERRY ANTOINE POINTE (rep. by Alexandra Benoiton) ILDRIS I" Accused 2nd Accused Neutral Citation: Before: Heard: Delivered: Republic v Ildris & Pointe (C084/2023) Burhan J 30 October 2023. 20 May 2024 Application for bail declined. ORDER ORDER BURHANJ [I] This is an application for bail in respect of the aforementioned accused. [2] The accused have been charged as follows: Count 1 Robbery with violence contrary to section 280 as read with section 22 (a) of the Penal Code and punishable under section 281 of the Penal Code Cap 158 Dan, Christopher Ildris, 32 years old, holding NIN 992-0907-1-28 and his brother Terry Antoine Pointe, 28 years old, holding NIN 995-1095-1-1991, both unemployed and resident at St. Louis, Mahe, on the 14th October 2023, at about 1515hours entered Raghavendra Shopping Center, at Beau Belle, Mahe, masked and armed with a knife and a piece of wood respectively and robbed one Mrs. V Shanmuga VabiveLan of her mobile phone valued at SR5000/- her gold necklace valued at SR11, 000/- and stole SR8000/- cash from the Cashier Register and that at or immediately before or immediately after the commission of such robbery, used violence against the said Mrs. Vabivelan, by grabbing and dragging her and aLso injuring her neck and also threatened with the knife. [3] I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel Ms Rene on behalf of both the accused in respect of bail and the objections of learned Assistant Principal State Counsel Mrs Langsinglu Rongmei Benjamin in respect of same. [4] The main grounds urged by learned Counsel in her application for bail are: a) b) the 1st and 2nd accused have a Constitutional right for bail. the prosecution has misled Court by stating that the maximum sentence for the offence is life imprisonment when it is only 18 years in terms of Section 280 of the Penal Code. c) The evidence against the accused is only circumstantial in nature. The only evidence against them is that they were in the area at the time and this is insufficient to deprive them of their right to liberty. [5] It is clear to this Court from the submissions of learned Counsel for the prosecution that in terms of Section 28 J of the Penal Code, if the offender is armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument, or is in company with one or more persons, or if, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of robbery, he wounds, beats, strikes, or uses any other personal violence to any person, he is liable to imprisonment for tife. Therefore the seriousness of the offence with which both the accused are charge with is apparent, as the maximum term of imprisonment is life imprisonment as correctly submitted by learned Counsel for the prosecution. [6] In regards to the Constitutional right of the accused to bail as correctly pointed out by learned Counsel for the prosecution, it is not an absolute right and is subject to the derogations contained in article 18 (7) of the Constitution. [7J In regard to the evidence being only circumstantial in nature, it is too premature to decide on these issues at this stage but considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the prosecution based on the affidavit filed in the case, the accused were captured by a camera just before entering the premises, even though they were masked at the time of the robbery. Further, the prosecution has brought it to the notice of court that items have been recovered from the house of the accused relevant to the robbery and it was the mother of the accused who helped the police recover these items. [8} Further, based on particulars contained in the charge sheet, the accused have used an offensive weapon and violence at the time of committing the offence and therefore the accused have the propensity to likewise intimidate lay witnesses in this case. Further they are persons well versed with court procedure and considering the serious penalty they face, could interfere with the course of justice and abscond if released on bail. Further, the trial against the accused is due to commence in three days and the accused therefore cannot complain of undue delay in the hearing of the case. [9] Therefore, considering the serious nature of the charge, the fact that there are substantial grounds to believe that the accused would abscond and interfere with the witnesses both the accused are further remanded into custody. The application for bail is declined and I am satisfied on consideration of all the above facts that su bstantial grounds exists for the further remand of the Ist and 2 nd accused into custody. [10] The need to consider stringent conditions therefore does not exist. Signed, dated and delivered at lie du Port on 20 May 2024. .' ,( ) , - e-,