By Bhagya Silva
Colombo, Oct. 13 (Daily Mirror) - President’s Counsel Anil Silva questioned the police conduct, alleging that Shiranthi Rajapaksa was being treated differently because of her identity. “Unfortunately, the problem here is that this is Shiranthi Rajapaksa. Is she now supposed to be hanged? Is that what is supposed to happen? If it were Mrs Anura Kumara, the police would not do any of this nonsense,” he told the court.
The Maligakanda Magistrate Janitha Perera yesterday dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Shiranthi Rajapaksa, seeking an order to release her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest.
Magistrate made the order, advising that the relevant anticipatory bail application should be filed before the court having the proper territorial jurisdiction.
The application was filed on October 5, seeking an order to release Shiranthi Rajapaksa on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the alleged criminal misappropriation of Rs. 10 million transferred from the National Savings Bank to the ‘Siriliya Saviya’ account in 2010, following a written request purportedly made by her to obtain a CT scanner for the Lady Ridgeway Hospital for Children.
When the anticipatory bail application was taken up in open court today, Senior State Counsel Samadari Priyasena, appearing for the Attorney General, submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the application.
She emphasised that facts relating to the incident had already been reported to the Fort Magistrate’s Court and that, in such circumstances, the petitioner could not seek anticipatory bail before the Maligakanda Magistrate’s Court in relation to a case pending before the Fort Magistrate’s Court.
Senior State Counsel Samadari Priyasena stated,
“This bail application has been filed by the petitioner in relation to the investigation into the alleged criminal misappropriation of Rs. 10 million transferred from the National Savings Bank to the ‘Siriliya Saviya’ account in 2010, following a request made by the suspect, Shiranthi Rajapaksa, claiming that the money was required to obtain a CT scanner for the Lady Ridgeway Hospital for Children.
However, a bail application in relation to the relevant incident cannot be made before this court. This court has no jurisdiction to do so.
Facts relating to this incident were reported to the Fort Magistrate’s Court by way of a B report on October 6, 2026. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to consider a bail application in relation to this incident. The bail application must be made before the Fort Magistrate’s Court. The territorial jurisdiction where the incident occurred falls within the jurisdiction of the Fort Magistrate’s Court. Therefore, I request that this bail application be dismissed.”
Thereafter, President’s Counsel Anil Silva, appearing for Shiranthi Rajapaksa, submitted that the prosecution’s contention that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the anticipatory bail application could not be accepted.
President’s Counsel Anil Silva stated,
“Your Honour, cases relating to this incident are being filed before different courts under different Acts. There is a case relating to this incident before this court. There is also a case before the Colombo Magistrate’s Court. Now they say there is a case before the Fort Court as well.
The prosecution is filing cases in different courts over the same incident. When bail is granted by one court, another court remands the person. There is a case relating to this incident before this court, so how can they say that this court has no jurisdiction?
The account relating to this incident was frozen pursuant to an order issued by this very court. So how can they now say that this court has no jurisdiction to consider this bail application?
What the prosecution is saying now is that this court has the power to remand a suspect but does not have the power to grant bail.
When this case was first taken up before this court, Additional Solicitor General Deelipa Peeris appeared on behalf of the State. He said that investigations into the incident were continuing and that the petitioner would not be arrested.
So how can they now say that this court has no jurisdiction to consider this bail application? The prosecution cannot change its position in different ways at different stages.
Unfortunately, the problem here is that this is Shiranthi Rajapaksa. Is she now supposed to be hanged? Is that what is supposed to happen? If she was Mrs Anura Kumara, the police would not do any of this nonsense.”
Following the submissions made by the President’s Counsel, an investigating officer appearing on behalf of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division submitted that, once the alleged criminal offence had been uncovered, facts relating to the incident were reported to the Fort Magistrate’s Court, which has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the alleged offence occurred.
The investigating officer appearing for the Financial Crimes Investigation Division stated,
“Your Honour, the President’s Counsel has become confused about this incident. The order to freeze the account that is the subject of this incident was not issued by this court. Following the receipt of the initial complaint relating to the incident, the account was frozen under the powers of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.
Initially, facts relating to this incident were presented before this court. On that occasion, Dileepa Peeris appeared and stated that further investigations into the incident were being conducted.
However, after the criminal offence relating to this incident was uncovered, the investigating officers reported facts relating to the incident before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the area where the alleged offence occurred.
At the request of the petitioner, the sum of Rs. 10 million was transferred to the Siriliya Saviya account through the Kollupitiya branch of the National Savings Bank. Based on the location of the relevant bank, the act relating to this alleged offence occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Fort Magistrate’s Court. That is why the investigating officers recently reported facts relating to the incident before the Fort Magistrate’s Court.”
Thereafter, the Magistrate inquired from the prosecution whether a further report relating to the investigation would be filed.
The investigating officer replied that no further report would be filed.
Having considered the submissions, the Magistrate dismissed the anticipatory bail application and advised the lawyers to file the application before the court having the proper territorial jurisdiction.