Fort Magistrate questions unusual behaviour of Police in facts reporting

CDS Guneratne released on conditional bail

 -Fort Police has not investigated properly into the alleged threatening to a key witness by the CDS- Fort Magistrate

-Fort Magistrate decides to remove Fort police from investigating the alleged threatening to a key witness by CDS

-Magistrate Dissanayake questions Police whether they had given a great degree of care not to mention the offence in the facts report for some reason

By Shehan Chamika Silva 

Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Ravindra Wijegunaratne who was arrested by the CID on the charge of harboring ‘Navy Sampath’ alias Chandana Parasad Hettiarchchi, who is the first suspect of the case on disappearance of 11 youths in 2008 and 2009 was today ordered to be released on conditional bail by Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court.

   

The suspect was released on two sureties of Rs. one million by Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanyake and directed not to breach any of the bail conditions of, not to interfere with witnesses or obstruct them, prevent him from obstructing the investigation, and not to use suspect’s office as a mean to intimidate any of the witnesses or investigative officers of the inquiry, as it could reverse the bail of the suspect.

The Magistrate also considering the another case which had filed by a key witness of the case on disappearance of 11 youth ‘Galagamage Laksiri’ observed that the Police has failed to inquire on the matter properly.

On an earlier occasion, Laksiri Galagamage, a key witness of the case on disappearance of 11 youths had made a complained to the Fort Police stating that CDS Ravindra Wijegunaratne and his aides had attempted to assault and shoot him.

Then the Fort Police filed a facts report about this incident in court and had sought several court orders on that regard.

At the onset of the yesterday’s inquiry (relating to the harboring of Prasad Hettiarachchi), appearing for the CID, Chief Inspector Thisera informed the Court about what transpired from the statements recorded by the CID with the Chief of Defense Staff Ravindra Guneratne in a recent interrogation.

Giving the statements, suspect Guneratne has denied the all allegations put forwarded against him saying that neither he did know Prasad Hettiarachchi (who was absconding the prosecution) nor was with the knowledge about any grant of money to him.

When Colombo Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake questioned, the CID informed Court that it has no objections for granting bail under the section 14 of the Bail Act over the second Suspect on this occasion.

President’s Counsel Anuja Premaratne, Senior Counsel Asela Rekawa, with Counsel Sajitha Jayawardena appearing for the suspect apprised the court there is no reason to keep their client in remand custody if the prosecution is not objecting for the bail at this occasion.

However, at this moment, Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake observed the relevancy of the related case to this inquiry (an alleged complained lodged by the key witness Galagamage Laksiri with the Fort Police over death threats and threats of abduction received by him from the suspect) for the consideration of the bail.

The Fort Police had reported facts about this threatening case in a ‘facts report’ to the Fort Magistrate’s Copurt.

The Magistrate perused the report and identified some flaws of the report as it had not mentioned the wrongdoing (offence according to the law) on which the inquiry has initiated by the Police and he observed that the police has indicated the suspect’s name (Ravindra Guneratne) as ‘respondent’ in to the inquiry, which is not accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

At this moment, the Magistrate Dissanayake questioned the police officer who was representing the Fort Police regarding possible reasons for the unusual way of the report.

Magistrate questioned whether the Fort Police had given a great degree of care not to mention the offence specifically or the suspects relating to the complaint for some reason.

However, the investigative officer relating to this incident was not present before the Court at this moment and the Court adjourned until the Officer in Charge of the Fort police arrives to the Court.

Fort Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake: On what basis you have indicated, Ravindra Gunaratne as a ‘respondent’ in this ‘facts report’, as there can be only suspects in such cases, only in Supreme Court Cases there can be respondents not in here?

Fort Police: We filed this facts report based on the initial complaint received to us from Galagamage Laksiri.

Fort Magistrate: Were you aware of the fact that, this complainant was a witness in another case and entitle to protection under the section 8 of the ‘Witness and Victim Protection Act 2015’?

Fort Police: Yes

Magistrate: What actions you took there after on that regard?

Police: We recorded statements from 14 individuals from that regard and have sent the CCTV footage relating to this threatening incident to the Government Analyst for further inquiry.

Magistrate: Now, tell me whether Ravindra Gunaratne can be included or named as a suspect based on the investigation that you have carried so far? Your answer is very decisive to the second suspect (Ravindra Guneratne) of the other case in order to consider grant him bail, therefore, reply with clarity.

Police: Based on the facts found so far, there is no sufficient evidence to name Ravindra Guneratne as a suspect in this threatening case.

At this moment Magistrate Ranga Dissanayake observing that the Fort Police is not conducting the investigation into this threatening case properly decided to act under the section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Code and removed the inquiry from the Fort Police.

And the Magistrate also directed the Western Province Senior Deputy Inspector of Police to transfer this threatening inquiry to a suitable division or body from the Fort Police.

The Fort Magistrate observed that he did not consider giving bail for the suspect on the earlier occasion, since there was possible interference with witnesses and the investigation by the suspect were transpired from the facts. However, on this occasion as the CID did not object for the bail and the Fort Police expressed no sufficient evidence against the other threatening case, the Magistrate granted a conditional bail for the suspect.