BAIL ACT.
DECIDED JUDGEMENTS ON BAIL ACT
Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law
BAIL ACT NO 30 OF 1997
SECTION 02
DACHCHAINI VS THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (2005) 2 Sri L. R 152
By the enactment of the Bail Act the policy in granting bail
has undergone a major change. The rule is the grant of bail. The Rule upholds
the values endorsed in human freedom. The exception is the refusal of bail and reasons
should be given when refusing bail.
ANURUDDHA RATWATTE AND 4
OTHERS VS ATTORNEY GENERAL [2003} 2 SRI L.R 39
That Section 2 of the Act gives the guiding principle in
respect of the implementation of the provisions of the Act. It is specifically
stated that “the grant of bail shall be regarded as the rule and the refusal to
grant bail as the exception.””
WICKRAMASINGHE VS. ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND ANOTHER [2010)1 SRIL.R 141
Grant of bail shall be regarded as the rule the refusal to
grant bail is the exception.
“The purpose of remanding a suspect/accused is
to ensure his appearance in Court on each and every day that the case is called
in Court; if the Court feels that, he would appear in Court after his release
on bail Court should enlarge him on bail. Court should not remand a
suspect/accused in order to punish him”.
SECTION 03
WICKRAMASINGHE VS. ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND ANOTHER [2010)1 SRIL.R 141
When Section 3 of the Bail Act is considered it is seen that
the Bail Act shall not apply to a person accused or suspected of having
committed or convicted of an offence under
1. The Prevention of Terrorism
(Temporary Provisions) Act No 48 of 1979,
2. Regulations made under the Public
Security Ordinance, or
3. Any other written law which makes
express provisions in respect of the release on bail of persons accused or suspected
of having committed, or convicted of, offences under such other written law.
SHIYAM VS OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, NARCOTICS BUREAU AND ANOTHER (2006)
2 SLR 156
PANNIPITIYA VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL [2011] 1 SRI L.R 267
SECTION 14
WICKRAMASINGHE VS. ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND ANOTHER [2010)1 SRIL.R 141
Does section 14 of the Bail Act say that ‘notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in the provisions of this Act?’ The answer is no. Does
it say “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 16 and 17 of the Bail Act?
The answer is no. But section 16 of the Bail Act says ‘subject to the
provisions of section 17.... ’ It does not say ‘subject to the provisions of section
14... For the above reasons, I hold that section 16 and 17 of the Bail Act are
not subject to the provisions of section 14.
ANURUDDHA RATWATTE AND 4 OTHERS VS ATTORNEY GENERAL [2003} 2 SRI L.R 39
SECTION 15
RUPATHUNGA VS ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND ANOTHER [2009] 1 SRIL.R. 170
With regard to the cancellation of bail the relevant Section
of the Bail Act is Section 14 and under Section 15 - Court has to give reasons
in writing for such refusal or cancellation or variation.
ANURUDDHA RATWATTE AND 4 OTHERS VS ATTORNEY GENERAL [2003} 2 SRI L.R 39
SECTION 16 – 17
WICKRAMASINGHE VS. ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND ANOTHER [2010)1 SRIL.R 141
When one considers Section 3 and Section 16 it is clear that
the suspect/accused to whom the Bail Act does not apply can be kept on remand
for a period exceeding two years but not the suspects to whom the Bail Act
applies.
“The maximum period that a suspect to whom the
Bail Act Applies can be kept on remand is 2 years, the period of 2 years is
considered only if the Attorney General acts under Section 17. If there is no
application under Section 17 the maximum period that a suspect/accused to whom
the Bail Act applies can be kept on remand is 1 year”.
SECTION 20
DACHCHAINI VS THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (2005) 2 Sri L. R 152
By the enactment of the Bail Act there is a major change in
the legislative policy and the Courts are bound to give effect to this policy.
The High Court judge in the impugned Order has erred in not taking into
consideration the policy change that has been brought in by the enactment and
mechanically applied the principle that the accused have failed to show
exceptional circumstances when this requirement is no more a principle
governing bail pending appeal.
SECTION 21
GUNASEKERA AND OTHERS VS RAVI KARUNANAYAKE (2005) 1 SRI L. R. 18
Comments
Post a Comment