BAIL - EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

-


 COMMENTS AND SUMMARY FROM GALLELAW BLOGGER (FOR GUIDANCE ONLY)

THIS COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY ARE PROVIDED FOR THE READER'S GUIDANCE AND DO NOT FORM PART OF THE OFFICIAL JUDGMENT.

The order in this case revolves around a petition filed by Shanthi Perera on behalf of her daughter, Omanthage Inoka Thushari Perera, who was arrested for possession of heroin. The primary legal issue concerns the denial of bail by the High Court of Panadura, which was challenged on the grounds of "exceptional circumstances" as stipulated in Section 83(1) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

Section 83(1) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, restricts the release on bail those who are accused under Section 54A and Section 54B unless "exceptional circumstances" are demonstrated.

1. Health Condition of the Suspect:

The suspect’s need for constant medical care, corroborated by medical reports, was a significant factor. She had undergone surgery and required ongoing medical attention and specific sanitary facilities, which were not adequately available in prison.

2. Delay in Judicial Process:

The court noted a substantial delay in serving the indictment, even after the Government Analyst's report was available. This delay was critical in determining the exceptional nature of the circumstances.

Court of Appeal Decision:

The Court of Appeal found that the combined factors of the suspect’s health condition and the delay in serving the indictment constituted exceptional circumstances warranting bail.

The previous order denying bail was set aside, and the High Court was directed to grant bail under suitable conditions.

This order highlights the role of the judiciary in interpreting "exceptional circumstances" on a case-by-case basis. It underscores the importance of timely judicial processes and adequate health care considerations when under detention.

By focusing on the exceptional health needs of the suspect and the procedural delays, the Court of Appeal demonstrated a commitment to justice and the humane treatment of individuals within the legal system.



 

SHANTHI PERERA VS. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL


CLICK ON THIS 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more