- Kalinga Indatissa PC points that petitioners have correctly invoked appellate jurisdiction and therefore the ability of the revision application being maintained at Court of Appeal
- ASG Kodagoda says the Magistrate can remand the suspects even for maximum of two years considering the provision ‘public disquiet’ under the Bail Act
By Shehan Chamika Silva
President's Counsel Gamini Marapana who appeared on behalf of Arjun Aloysius in the revision bail application today ensured the Court of Appeal that no fresh bail application will be filed in magisterial inquiry today on suspect as it could question the revision application being continued in the Court of Appeal.
Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda drew the court's attention that there was an advance notice to the state from President's Counsel Anil Silva over a fresh bail application to be made today before the Fort Magistrate.
The Court of Appeal president Prithi Pathman Surasena observed that if the petitioners are in expectation over seeking an alternative remedy considering the change of circumstances in the magisterial inquiry, then the Court of Appeal is unable to see any justification to proceed with the revision application.
Thereafter, President's Counsel Gamini Marapana made his under taking that such application would not be made today.
At the onset, resuming his further submission, Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda elaborated the all allegations that put forward against the suspects in the magisterial inquiry and based on those allegations how the Bail Act operates in the question of granting the bail.
While explaining the possibility of keeping the suspects under the remand custody according to the Bail Act, he stated that the magistrate could remand suspects considering the public disquiet that may arise due to the alleged matter.
He said the Treasury Bond scam inquiry is an incident that spontaneously came into light of the general public not just because the Public institutions that were part of this fraud but its macro economic impact to the society which can never be estimated.
ASG Kodagoda observed that therefore the suspects could be kept in remand custody for maximum of two years as per law by a magistrate even only considering the aspect of 'public disquiet'.
Meanwhile, making counter submissions, President's Counsel Kalinga Indatissa argued on ASG's previous preliminary objection that the petitioners have not invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
Pointing out a paragraph in the revision petition, he held that the petitioners have exercised their right to appeal properly in addition to the revision application which which sought against the High Court order.
Therefore, he maintained that the respondents preliminary objection cannot stand over the jurisdiction.
Mr. Indatissa also drew the attention of the court on the legal question as to whether the Treasury Bond could be regarded as property as per prevailing law.
Questioning the way in which the Fort Magistrate made it count as a property, he argued that the Bond is a concept which cannot be regarded as a tangible property and therefore the offences cannot fall under the public property.
The further inquiry relating to the revision bail application filed on behalf of Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena was re-fixed for July 18 by the Court of Appeal Bench comprising Justice Shiran Gunaratne and Prithi Padman Surasena (President).
Earlier, the Fort Magistrate remanded the suspects considering the allegations levelled against them under the Public Property Act. And later, the suspects went to the High Court as the magistrate cannot release them on bail as per the PPA, where one who misappropriated public property causing more than Rs. 25, 000 damage to the state has no bail relief unless exceptional circumstances or by a high court judge.
However, Colombo High Court also refused to grant bail on suspects set a siding the suspects’ petitions. As a result, the suspects filed a revision bail petition in Court of Appeal to revise the bail order of the Magistrate and the decision of the High Court.
By Shehan Chamika Silva
President's Counsel Gamini Marapana who appeared on behalf of Arjun Aloysius in the revision bail application today ensured the Court of Appeal that no fresh bail application will be filed in magisterial inquiry today on suspect as it could question the revision application being continued in the Court of Appeal.
Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda drew the court's attention that there was an advance notice to the state from President's Counsel Anil Silva over a fresh bail application to be made today before the Fort Magistrate.
The Court of Appeal president Prithi Pathman Surasena observed that if the petitioners are in expectation over seeking an alternative remedy considering the change of circumstances in the magisterial inquiry, then the Court of Appeal is unable to see any justification to proceed with the revision application.
Thereafter, President's Counsel Gamini Marapana made his under taking that such application would not be made today.
At the onset, resuming his further submission, Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda elaborated the all allegations that put forward against the suspects in the magisterial inquiry and based on those allegations how the Bail Act operates in the question of granting the bail.
While explaining the possibility of keeping the suspects under the remand custody according to the Bail Act, he stated that the magistrate could remand suspects considering the public disquiet that may arise due to the alleged matter.
He said the Treasury Bond scam inquiry is an incident that spontaneously came into light of the general public not just because the Public institutions that were part of this fraud but its macro economic impact to the society which can never be estimated.
ASG Kodagoda observed that therefore the suspects could be kept in remand custody for maximum of two years as per law by a magistrate even only considering the aspect of 'public disquiet'.
Meanwhile, making counter submissions, President's Counsel Kalinga Indatissa argued on ASG's previous preliminary objection that the petitioners have not invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
Pointing out a paragraph in the revision petition, he held that the petitioners have exercised their right to appeal properly in addition to the revision application which which sought against the High Court order.
Therefore, he maintained that the respondents preliminary objection cannot stand over the jurisdiction.
Mr. Indatissa also drew the attention of the court on the legal question as to whether the Treasury Bond could be regarded as property as per prevailing law.
Questioning the way in which the Fort Magistrate made it count as a property, he argued that the Bond is a concept which cannot be regarded as a tangible property and therefore the offences cannot fall under the public property.
The further inquiry relating to the revision bail application filed on behalf of Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena was re-fixed for July 18 by the Court of Appeal Bench comprising Justice Shiran Gunaratne and Prithi Padman Surasena (President).
Earlier, the Fort Magistrate remanded the suspects considering the allegations levelled against them under the Public Property Act. And later, the suspects went to the High Court as the magistrate cannot release them on bail as per the PPA, where one who misappropriated public property causing more than Rs. 25, 000 damage to the state has no bail relief unless exceptional circumstances or by a high court judge.
However, Colombo High Court also refused to grant bail on suspects set a siding the suspects’ petitions. As a result, the suspects filed a revision bail petition in Court of Appeal to revise the bail order of the Magistrate and the decision of the High Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment