IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for Bail in terms of section 83 of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by Act No. 41 of 2022 of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

The Officer-in-Charge, Police Narcotics Bureau, Colombo 01.

CA Case No: BAL/423/23 MC- Fort Complainant Case No: B 24785 /23 V s

1. Kapugamage Sudesh Dilshan, No. 85, Odeyara Mawatha, Theliyagonna, Kurunegala.

2. Lankadeva Dinesh Anuradha De Soysa, Maradavalla, Suduwella Road, Panadura. Suspects And Now Between Kapugamage Sudesh Dilshan, No. 85, Odeyara Mawatha, Theliyagonna, Kurunegala.

Petitioner Vs.

1. Officer-in-Charge, Police Narcotics Bureau, Colombo 01.

2. The Hon. Attorney General, The Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Respondents Before: R. Gurusinghe J.

&

M.C.B.S. Morais J.

Counsel: Kalinga Indatissa, PC with Waseemal Akram, Niranjan Iriyagolla, Mithun Dias and Rashmini Indatissa for the Petitioner.

Jehan Gunasekara, SC for the Respondents. Inquiry on: 21.05.2024 Decided On: 04.07.2024 M.C.B.S. Morais J.

The petitioner is the suspect in the case bearing number B 24785/23 in the Magistrate Court of Fort. The suspect was arrested by a group of police officers attached to the Narcotics Bureau on 23^rd of February 2023 for having in possession and trafficking a gross quantity of 402.1 grams of ‘Methamphetamine’. Subsequent to the Report of the Government Analysts the pure quantity of said ‘Methamphetamine’ is said to be 153.8 grams. It is apparent that the suspect has been produced before the Magistrate Court of Fort on the 24^th of February 2023 and held in remand custody up to this date.

The petitioner has made this application before us under section 83 of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act, No.41 of 2022. As for the provisions of section

83(2), “83(2) notwithstanding the provisions of sections 84 and 85, a person suspected or accused of an offence under subsection (1) of section 54A and section 54B-

(a) of which the pure quantity of the dangerous drug, trafficked, imported, exported, or possessed is ten grams or above in terms of the report issued by the Government Analyst under section 77A; and (b) Which is punishable with death or life imprisonment, shall not be released on bail except by the Court of Appeal in exceptional circumstances.”

What constitutes exceptional circumstances is not defined in the statute. Our Superior Courts have considered various situations as exceptional circumstances in granting bail for suspects in terms of the Ordinance.

In, Ramu Thamodarampillai V. The Attorney General [2004] 3 SLR 180, it was held that:

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

In, Labynidarage Nishanthi V. Attorney General CA (PHC) APN 48/2014), said that: “…the term „exceptional circumstances‟ has not been explained or defined in any of the statutes. Judges are given a wide discretion in deciding in what creates a circumstance which exceptional in nature.”

When applied in relation to the facts before us, in paragraph 25 of the petition, the petitioner pleads that the grounds set out in paragraphs 13 to 24 which are alleged as exceptional grounds and they are reproduced in verbatim, as follows:

13. B report dated 24^th of February 2023 and the subsequent further reports filed are incorrect, inaccurate and false. 1^st respondent has not accurately reported facts to the court.

14. The petitioner states, i. The petitioner has lent money to the 2^nd suspect from time to time and as at to date the total amount due to the petitioner from the 2^nd suspect was a sum of Rs. 2,400,000/-

with interest, ii. Since the 2^nd suspect delayed in returning the money borrowed, the petitioner has contacted the 2^nd suspect requesting him to return the money a few times, iii. When the petitioner contacted the 2^nd suspect on 23^rd of February 2023 requesting the money, the 2^nd suspect has informed the petitioner that he is expecting