IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Bail in terms of Article 138 (1) of the Constitution to revise and or to set aside the impugned orders on Bail dated 23-11-2022 and 02- 02-2023 pronounced by the learned High Court Judge of Colombo.

Court of Appeal No: Korale Gedara Gunathilaka CPA/0022/23 No. 71/9, Laggala, Pallegama.

(Presently at Remand Prison)

WITNESS-PETITIONER High Court of Colombo Vs.

Case No. HCB 53/2020 The Director General, The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, No. 36, Malalasekara Mw, Colombo 07.

RESPONDENT Before : Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

: P. Kumararatnam, J.

Counsel : U. R. De Silva, P.C. with H. Ruberu for the Petitioner : Ganga Heiyanthuduwa, Deputy Director General for the Respondent Argued on : 31-03-2023 Decided on : 03-04-2023 Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

This is an application by the witness petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) invoking the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court seeking bail for himself and to revise and set aside the orders made by the learned High Court Judge of Colombo dated 23-11-2022 and 02-02-2023, where his application for bail was refused.

The Director General of the Commission to Investigate Bribery or Corruption has filed an action in the High Court of Colombo against a person for committing four offences punishable in terms of section 19 (b) and 19 (c) of the Bribery Act. The petitioner was the fourth witness named in the indictment. At the trial held in that regard, the petitioner has given his evidence before the High Court on 31- 10-2022. On that day, on the basis that he is giving evidence detrimental to the prosecution, an application has been made to treat him as an adverse witness in terms of section 154 of the Evidence Ordinance, which has been allowed. Accordingly, he has been cross-examined by the prosecution. At the end of his evidence, the learned High Court Judge has ordered the remanding of the petitioner by making the following order.

නියයෝගය-

පැමිණිලිකාර පාර්ශවයේ සා්ේි අංක 4 බැලු බැල්මට යමම අධිකරණය ඉදිරියේ අස්ⶺය සා්ේි ලබා දී ඇති බවට පැහැදිලි යේ. එම කාරණාව 1994 අංක 19 දරන අල්ලස් හා දුෂණ ය ෝදනා සභා පනයේ 14 (1), (2), (3) වග්ලී්ල යේ ⷁᮅතිපාදන යටයේ සායේ්ේෂව සැලකිල්ලට ගනිමි. ඒ අනුව අදාල සා්ේිකරුට එයරහිව යමම නඩුයේ විභාගය අවසානයේදී අස්ⶺය සා්ේි ලබා දීම සම්බ්ලදයය්ල අධිය ෝදනා පⶺᮅය්ේ ඉදිරිපේ කිරීමට පියවර ගැනීමට අල්ලස් යහෝ දුෂණ යකාමිෂ්ල සභායේ අදාල නිලධාරි

මහ්ⶺාට දැනුම් යදමි. සා්ේිකරු එය්ⶺ්ේ රිමා්ල් භාරයට පේ කරමි.”

It is clear from the above order, that the learned High Court Judge has remanded the petitioner for an indefinite period, until The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (hereinafter referred to as the Bribery Commission) prefer an indictment against the petitioner, which would be an event that can happen only after the conclusion of the trial where the petitioner was supposed to have given false evidence. The next hearing date of the trial has been fixed for 02-02-2023.

An application has been made on 23-11-2022, seeking bail for the petitioner. The learned Counsel representing the Bribery Commission has made submissions to the effect that once a person is remanded in terms of section 14 of The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act No. 19 of 1994 (The Act), such a person can be granted bail only by the Court of Appeal under exceptional circumstances.

The learned High Court Judge has accepted the argument and has held that he has no jurisdiction to grant bail in terms of section 14 (3) of the Act, and has refused the application for bail.

Another application for bail has been made when the case was taken up for further trial on 02-02-2023. When the 2nd application was made, the learned Counsel who represented the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court, the inappropriateness of keeping the petitioner under remand custody until the conclusion of the trial, indicating that it would be prejudicial toward