Bhimla Ramloll had planned to transit through Dubai to visit India. This order, she said, to follow treatment for his spine. However, the court Rose Hill did not accede to his request. Thus, the motion of counsel for the temporary lifting of the prohibition order to leave the country was dismissed this Monday, Dec. 2, 2013.
Magistrate Meenakshi Gayan-Jaulimsing ruled in his "ruling" that there is a serious risk that the defendant may flee risk. She said that there was no "reason" why Bhimla Ramloll must go abroad. She also emphasized the gravity of the offenses alleged against the accused and the penalties provided for by law in case of a guilty verdict.
Bhimla Ramloll is currently subject to three interim charges: conspiracy, money laundering and financial services have operated without holding the appropriate license from the Financial Services Commission (FSC).
The Sub-Inspector (SI) Vythilingum, assigned to the Central Criminal Investigation Department (CCID) has been mandated to court to oppose the request Bhimla Ramloll to leave the territory of Mauritius. He argued that the police feared that the defendant does not return to the country, if it ever should be allowed to travel. The prosecution was represented by Chitra Soobagrah.
The officer reported that Bhimla Ramloll was arrested March 29, 2013. He said that the house of the defendant was searched by police and Rs 22 million in cash were seized as Rs 120 million as "office checks." After investigation ", it is established that Rs 720 million were been invested in the company Sunkai Co. Ltd.. The police have recovered Rs 170 million to date. The police investigation is ongoing and other stakeholders are expected for their versions of the facts. Also, the police must again ask Bhimla Ramloll after the FSC has submitted its report on contracts with investors and company Bhimla Ramloll "contracts, had supported the SI Vythilingum. It has also informed the court that the police investigation will seven to eight months to complete.
Bhimla Ramloll had said, for her part, it intends to comply with all conditions imposed by the Court in the event that the motion is accepted. Her lawyer, Mohammad Zakir, argued that every patient should be able to choose the hospital of his choice. But for me Soobagrah Chitra, there is no absolute necessity for the defendant to go to India. Magistrate Meenakshi Gayan-Jaulimsing rejected the arguments of the defense.