CA cannot lawfully grant bail on Aloysius, Palisena: ASG Kodagoda

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda today challenged that it was not lawfully possible for the Court of Appeal to grant bail on Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena due to the manner in which the revision bail application was filed did not invoke appellate jurisdiction of the court.

Apprising the Court, ASG Kodagoda elucidated that initially the Fort Magistrate had refused to grant bail on the suspects (petitioners) on February 16, 2018 during the magisterial inquiry and thereafter, the suspects went to the High Court seeking to revise the magistrate’s order, however, the High Court also refused to entertain the matter on March 9, 2018.

In that backdrop, the petitioners had filed a revision bail application in the Court Appeal and sought to grant bail on Aloysius and Palisena quashing the High Court and Magistrate’s order.

ASG Kodagoda said that it is not possible for the petitioners to get such remedy due to the way in which they had sought those remedies in the revision application.

He said, “firstly the petitioner should have mentioned the exceptional circumstances as to why he could not invoke the appellate jurisdiction, which was available to the petitioner as of right and secondly they should have mentioned the exceptional circumstances that warrants to exercise this extraordinary remedy of rectify the High Court’s order, and thirdly they should have cited exceptional circumstances over the impugned High Court Judge’s exercise”.

In the question of granting bail, according to the ASG, there was a right of appeal under the section 404 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the petitioners, where the Court Appeal can exercise its jurisdiction on granting bail, and the petitioners failed to invoke that in their revision application.

“For the Court of appeal to consider bail under the Section 404, the petitioners could have directly come to the Court after the Magistrate refused to grant bail”, said ASG Kodagoda.

According to the ASG, the maximum the petitioner can lawfully expect is the quashing of that refusal, which would send this mater to the High Court and then that revision application will get activated.

ASG Kodagoda also went onto establish the inter-dependence of the allegations leveled against Arjuna Mahendran, Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena as they have an allegation of abetting to commit each others’ offences which come under both the Public Property Act and the Registered Stock and Securities Ordinance.

ASG Kodagoda’s further submissions will resume on July 4, 2018 before the Court of Appeal Bench comprising Justice Shiran Gunaratne and Prithi Padman Surasena (President).

In the meantime, at the end of the inquiry, when the court was deciding on the next date, President’s Counsel Gamini Marapana who appeared for the suspects moved that they could file further submissions in written form to avoid the delay. 

While saying that he in a sarcastic manner told the ASG “as you have now made submissions to the press”.

At this moment, ASG Kodagoda replied saying “I’m not interested in the press

This is really the most uncalled for and surely for a person in your seniority. And I would say that is a most unacceptable comment”.

However, Mr. Marapana asked again whether submissions could be delivered in a written form and ASG Kodagoda said, ‘no concessions, I’m addressing the court’