IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for revision in terms of Article 138 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Officer-in-Charge Police Station Marawila Complainant Vs.

Court of Appeal Revision Application No : Warnakulasuriya Dileepa Belan CA/ PHC/APN 134/20 Sumedha No 10/E, Dematapitiya High Court of Chillaw Bangadeniya Case No : BA 83/20 Suspect And Magistrate’s Court Marawila Case No : B2106/2018 Weerasinghe Arachchilage Deepa Nandani, No 10/E, Dematapitiya Bangadeniya Petitioner Vs.

1. Officer-in-Charge Police Station Moratuwa

2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Respondents Warnakulasuriya Dileepa Belan Sumedha (Presently at Remand Prison, Negombo)

Suspect And now between Weerasinghe Arachchilage Deepa Nandani, No 10/E, Dematapitiya Bangadeniya Petitioner-Petitioner Vs.

1. Officer-in-Charge Police Station Marawila

2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 Respondents-Respondents Warnakulasuriya Dileepa Belan Sumedha (Presently at Remand Prison, Negombo)

Suspect BEFORE : Menaka Wijesundera J Neil Iddawala J COUNSEL : Anil Silva P.C. with Nandana Perera for the petitioner.

Priyani Abeygunawardena, State Counsel for the respondents.

Argued on : 29.06.2021 Decided on : 20.07.2021 Iddawala – J The Petitioner has invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 138 of the Constitution seeking to set aside an order of the learned High Court Judge of Chilaw dated 07.08.2020 in Bail Application BA 83/20.

The petitioner is the wife of the suspect of the Case: B2106/2018 in the Magistrate’s Court of Marawila. The suspect of the case has been arrested on 06.11.2018 by the Police at the Marawila Bus Stand for the alleged possession of heroin. Accordingly, he was produced before the Magistrate of Marawila under case No. B2106/2018 for allegedly committing offences under Section 54A of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by Act, No 13 of

1984.

The first bail application on behalf of the suspect was filed in the High Court of Chilaw in terms of Section 83 of the above Ordinance on 09.12.2020 bearing case no. AB 75/ 19. The learned High Court Judge has refused to issue notice stating that the relevant documents have not been annexed to the bail application.

Thereafter, a second bail application was filed bearing case no BA 06/2020 in the High Court of Chilaw and that was refused by the Order dated 03.02.2020 on the ground that no exceptional circumstances have been averred.

Then the third bail application, which is the related matter to this instant case, was filed bearing case no BA 83/20 and the learned High Court Judge of Chilaw has refused to issue notice by the Order dated 07.08.2020 on the grounds that an Order in a bail application by a High Court is an ‘appealable final Order’, an avenue of appeal the petitioner has not resorted to. He has further held that filing of another bail application subsequent to the refusal of the previous application is an abuse of the process of court and a waste of time.

Being aggrieved by the said Order on 07.08.2020 in the case BA 83/20, the petitioner preferred the instant revision application to this Court pleading that the said Order be set aside and the suspect be enlarged on bail.

As such there are two main issues that must be dealt with by this Court:

1. Does the Petitioner have locus standi to maintain the present application? 2. Are there grounds for the Court of Appeal to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction and if so, can the suspect be enlarged on bail?

Turning to the first issue, the respondents-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) have filed their statement of objections and objected to this application on the grounds, inter alia, that petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this revision application and there are no exceptional circumstances to invoke the revisionary jurisdictio