IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for bail under Section 10 (1) (a) of the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act No.4 of 2015 read along with Bail Act No. 30 of 1997 Court of Appeal Case No. The Officer in Charge, CA/BAIL/25/21 Police Station, Rajanganaya.

M C Thambuttegama Case No.

B 2026/20 COMPLAINANT Vs.

1. Singapuliyage Suresh Chathuranga Wijethilaka.

70, Track 11, Gemunupura, Anuradhapura.

2. Wickramapalage Malith Susinidu Piyumal Wickramapala. Rajanganaya, Track 11, Gamunupura.

3. Pihiledeniyegedara Pathum Sanjaya Disanayake, Track 11, Rajanganaya, Gemunupura SUSPECT AND NOW BETWEEEN Wickremapalage Malith Susinidu Piyumal Wickremapala Rajanganaya, Track 11, Gemunupura

2^ND SUSPECT-PETITIONER Vs

1. The Officer in Charge Police Station, Rajanganaya.

2. Hon. Attorney General Attorney General’s Department Colombo 12 RESPONDENTS Before : Menaka Wijesundera J Neil Iddawala, J Counsel : Migara Doss for the Petitioner Earandi Dassanaike SC for the State Argued on : 02.02.2022 Decided on : 07.03.2022 Menaka Wijesundera J The instant applications for revisions has been filed by the suspect petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 2^nd petitioner) under the provisions of the Assistance of Victims and Witnesses Act no 4 of 2015.

On 23.9.2020 the Rajangana police have conducted a raid on cannabis in the residence of SisilasiriJayawardene and Sheehan Chamikara Jayewardene and had taken the two in to custody.

Hence according to the version of the petitioner with the other accused and they had visited the police station to see as to what kind of assistance can be rendered to the above mentioned suspects as they had been friends. They had started a conversation with the officers on duty but it had ensued in an argument between the two parties.

Thereafter the police had arrested the petitioners.

The Counsel appearing for the respondents have stated that the petitioner and the other two accused had threatened the police officers and had said that they would be killed in due course. As such the respondents moved that the petitioner and the other two accused had the audacity to walk in to a police station and threaten the officers on duty with death which displays their scant disregard for the due administration of justice.

The petitioner stated that the position put forward by the respondents is not possible for three lay people to be threatening officers on duty inside the premises of a police station.

According to the provisions of the above mentioned act offences have been defined under sections 8 and 9 of the act and bail had been considered under section 10 of the act which says that only under exceptional circumstances the Court of Appeal may enlarge the suspects on bail.

The term exceptional has not been defined in the act but our legal luminaries have defined the term exceptional in many of the decided cases and it has been held that the exceptionality defers from case to case which leaves a wide discretion to the judges. But it has been held that the discretion should not be used capriciously.

As such in the instant matter exceptionality urged by the petitioners is the improbability of the incident as urged by the respondents.

But this Court has to take serious note of the complaint of the respondents because it clearly is an interference with due administration of the criminal justice system.

Hence as the indictments against the petitioners have already been forwarded, and this Court directs the relevant High Court Judge to expedite the matters as per the provisions of the act.

As such this Court sees no reason to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

Judge of the Court of Appeal.

I agree.

Neil Iddawala J.

Judge of the Court of Appeal.