Section 215: Bail – Principles—The applicant’s bail application had been refused by

215. Bail – Principles—The applicant’s bail application had been refused by the District Magistrate. The latter had posed the question whether there were conditions which could have been imposed to reduce the risk of absconding, but had failed to state what those conditions were and why such conditions would not have been sufficient to make the risks negligible. The Supreme Court remitted the matter back on 2 occasions to the District Magistrate to carry out this “omitted exercise”. When the Magistrate reconsidered the matter, he again declined to grant bail. As a result the applicant applied for bail review before the Supreme Court. HELD the right of the applicant to a fair hearing with a reasonable time as guaranteed by section 10 of the Constitution would assume its full significance and the fundamental right of a detainee to be released where he is [Issue 1] CON – 224 Revised Laws of Mauritius not tried within a reasonable time is enshrined in section 5 (3) of the Constitution must be given a purposive effect. Since, by the time of the bail review a charge had already been lodged against the applicant before the Supreme Court, the Court ordered that if he was not afforded a hearing of the charge by the end of the next court term, he should be released on bail under certain conditions which were listed in the judgment. Islam v Senior District Magistrate, Grand Port District Court (3) (2006).