IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for bail in terms of the Section 83 of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by the Act No.41 of 2022.

Court of Appeal The Officer-in-Charge Application No. Police Narcotics Bureau, CA Bail 0449/2024 Colombo-01.

COMPLAINANT Vs.

Magistrate Court of Seneviratne Dissanayakage Sajith Hambantota Thivanka Case No: BR/4622/2022 (Presently in remand custody)

9^th SUSPECT AND NOW BETWEEN Dona Francis Nadeeka Gunasekara No. 21, Maha Ela Kandiya, Meda Para, Koggala.

PETITIONER Vs.

1. The Attorney General Attorney General’s Department, Colombo-12.

2. Th Officer-in-Charge Police Narcotics Bureau Colombo-01.

RESPONDENTS AND Seneviratne Dissanayakage Sajith Thivanka (Presently in remand custody)

9^th SUSPECT BEFORE : P. Kumararatnam, J.

K.M.S.Dissanayake, J.

COUNSEL : Shamindra Rodrigo with Eranda Sinharage for the Petitioner.

Malik Azeez, SC for the Respondents.

ARGUED ON : 17/03/2025. DECIDED ON : 30/04/2025.

*****************************

ORDER

P.Kumararatnam, J.

The Petitioner is the wife of the 9^th Suspect named in the Hambantota Magistrate Case No. BR/4622/22.

According to the B report submitted by the Police Narcotics Bureau, Cololmbo-1, the 9^th Suspect was for the possession and trafficking of 25.910 Kilograms of substance like Heroin. The substance recovered was sent to the Government Analyst Department for analysis. According to the Government Analyst Report pure quantity of 14.2986 Kilograms of Heroin (Diacetylmorphine) had been detected in the substance.

The 9^th Suspect was produced in the Magistrate Court of Colombo and facts were reported under Section 54A (c) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by the Act No.13 of 1984.

Upon a Court order the 9^th Suspect was placed under a detention order to facilitate the Police Narcotics Bureau to conduct further investigation with regard to the detection.

The Petitioner states that the said quantity of Heroin had been recovered from two bags of paddy from the possession of a different Suspect and the 9^th Suspect did not have any connection for the quantity of Heroin that was recovered. The Petitioner further states that the 9^th Suspect had been arrested purely on statements provided by other Suspects who had falsely implicated the 9th Suspect in the said offence.

The Petitioner submit that the 9th Suspect had been in remand for nearly

29 six months without filing any charge against them.

The Petitioner has pleaded following exceptional circumstances in support of this Bail Application.

1. The 9th Suspect had been in remand for over 28 months.

2. The 9^th Suspect had no knowledge regarding the presence of any suspected narcotics which was in possession of another suspect.

3. The 9^th Suspect was not involved in possession and trafficking any form of narcotics.

The State opposing to bail submitted that the dossier of the investigations has been received by the Attorney General’s Department and registered under CR3/474/2023. The matter is under consideration at present. Hence, Learned State Counsel submitted that the delay is not an exceptional circumstance to be considered to enlarge the 9^th Suspect on bail. Further, the time spent for preparing the indictment does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

The 9^th Suspect is in remand nearly 29 months. According to Government Analyst Report, the pure quantity of Heroin detected from the possession of the 9th Suspect and others is 14.2986 Kilograms.

The exceptional circumstances are not defined in the statute. Hence, what is exceptional circumstances must be considered on its own facts and circumstances on a case by case.

In Ramu Thamodarampillai v. The Attorney General [2004] 3 SLR

180 the court held that:

“the decision must in each case depend on its own peculiar facts and circumstances”.

The Section 83 of the Poison, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Act which was amended by Act No. 41 of 2022 states:

83. (1) Subject to the provisions