The revision application filed by Attorney General challenging the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s order to to bail IGP Pujith Jayasundara and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando was yesterday fixed by the Colombo High Court for support on August 1.
When the application came up before High Court Judge Vikum Kaluarachchi, IGP Pujith Jayasundara and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando who had been named as respondents in the revision application were present in court.
The High Court Judge observed that there is no necessity of issuing notices on the respondents since they have voluntarily appeared in courts.
President’s Counsel Anura Meddegoda appearing for IGP Pujith Jayasundara submitted to court that he is expecting to raise objections against the Interim Order sought by the Attorney General.
Filing this application in High Court, the petitioner (Attorney General) is seeking an Interim Order to stay the bail order made by Colombo Chief Magistrate on July 9 and commit the two suspects to remand custody.
Both suspects (respondents) were arrested by the CID over the allegation of criminal negligence, murder and failure to prevent or at least minimise damages, caused during the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks. However, Colombo Chief Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne ordered the release of the two suspects on bail citing that there are no sufficient facts for the two suspects to be charged with murder under Section 296 of the Penal Code.
In his revision application, the Attorney General observed that the bail order of the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court was “illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary and against the weight of material” placed before the Magistrate. The Attorney General stated that the Colombo Chief Magistrate had “misdirected” herself by applying legal principles applicable in interpreting statues and, had entertained a “fanciful existent doubt” in the stance of the Attorney General on the application of Section 296 and 298 of the Penal Code.
The Attorney General further argued that the Magistrate has erred in law in determining that the recording of statements by the two suspects and that considering the versions of the suspects therein was a pre-requisite to effect an arrest of the suspects and that the failure of the prosecution to do so would make the arrest of the suspects improper. The petitioner stated that the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No.15 of 1979 (CCPA) on arrest regarding cognizable offences do not entail such a pre-requisite for recording a statement from a suspect prior to arrest.
The Attorney General further stated that the Chief Magistrate had failed to consider the initial foreign intelligence information that was communicated to both suspects via phone on April 8, 2019 and in writing to the IGP on April 9, 2019.
Deputy Solicitor General Thusith Mudalige appeared for the Attorney General. President’s Counsel Anura Meddegoda with Anuja Premaratne PC appeared for the respondents.
Add new comment