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