CA RESERVES BAIL ORDER ON ALOYSIUS, PALISENA FOR OCTOBER 11

When the date of the order was pronounced, President’s Counsel Gamini Marapana sought the permission from Court of Appeal Justices to file a new bail application in Fort Magistrate’s Court, without prejudicing the Court of Appeal revision application.

This new application was sought to be filed into the Magisterial inquiry under the special circumstances as the second suspect’s (Aloysius’) wife was in serious health condition.

However, Court of Appeal President Prithi Padman Surasena said that the court of appeal cannot permit nor prohibit such application being made to the magisterial inquiry, but certainly, such application would take into consideration in the revision application process.

Subsequently, Mr Marapana replied saying that he doesn’t want to prejudiced the revision application inquiry by making an application into the magisterial inquiry.

At the onset, Gamini Marapana PC who appeared for Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena in the revision bail application filed before the Court of Appeal, yesterday said that the prosecution had abused the process of the court of law when introducing Bond Commission report into the magisterial inquiry as it was inadmissible as per law.

Marapana PC said that there was ample evidence to suggest that the prosecution had invited the Magistrate to consider the Bond Report in the inquiry and the Magistrate had also referred to the report in her bail refusing the order.

Elaborating on the legal nature of such Commissions, Mr Marapana was of the view that commission’s materials are inadmissible in the court of law as commissions are not identified as a judicial or a quasi-judicial body by the law. Citing several previous Supreme Court judgments in connection with the nature of such commissions’ reports and recommendations, he said ‘a report of a Commission’ will not be regarded as evidence in any court according to the law.

Thereby, he challenged prosecution placing the ‘Bond report’ into the magisterial inquiry and said ‘placing the report itself is illegal’.

He contested that the material (bond report) on which the Magistrate had given the bail order is inadmissible in court since the report of a commission cannot be taken as evidence in court according to the law.