In Re Shamila Begam (S.N. Silva, J.)
IN RE SHAMILA BEGAM
COURT OF APPEAL
P.R.P. PERERA, J. & S.N. SILVA, J.
C.A. No. 476/89M.C. FORT NO. 64233SEPTEMBER 20, 1989.
Custody – Custody of married party – Order releasing suspect to custody of parents.
Shamila Begam the 3rd suspect was married to the 1st suspect on 31,05.1989. On07.06.89 the Magistrate made Order releasing the 3rd suspect to the custody of herparents on a bond of Rs. 5000/-.
The Magistrate had no authority to release the 3rd suspect to the custody of theparents.
Per S.N. Silva, J.
“It is inconceivable as to how in a charge under section 357 of the Penal Code, (beingthe offence disclosed in the report) the girl who is the alleged victim of the gffence can
also be treated as a suspect. Be that as it may, the Magistrate should rightly
consider whether she should be- released on bail pending trial.”’
Case referred to:-
(1) Vythiyalingam v. Gnanapathipillai 46 NLR 235.
APPLICATION in revision of the Order of the Magistrate of Colombo Fort.
U.D.M. Abeysekera with C.F. Jayawickrema for Petitioner.
Miss I. Demuni, S.C. for Attorney-General.
September 20, 1989.
S.N. SILVA, J.
The Petitioner being the 2nd suspect in case No. 64233 M.C. FortColombo has filed this application in Revision in respect of certainorders made by the learned Magistrate. Upon this application beingmade, Court directed the issue of notice on the Hon.Attorney-General and the matter is argued today,
Mr. Abeysekera appearing for the petitioner stated that he wasrestricting the relief sought to a review of the order dated 7.6.89made by the learned Magistrate releasing the 3rd suspect ShamilaBegam to the custody of her parents on a bond of Rs. 5,000/-. Mr.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
1198912 Sri LR
Abeysekera submitted that the 3rd suspect is the wife of the 1stsuspect Abdul Latiff Mohamed Razeem. He produced the marriagecertificate, the 1st suspect and the 3rd suspect were married on31.5.89 at 8.30 a.m. Counsel submitted that the learned Magistratehad no authority to release the 3rd suspect to the custody of herparents. He relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in thecase of Vaithyalingam vs. Gnanapathipillai. Learned State Counselappearing for the Attorney-General concedes that the learnedMagistrate had no authority to make an order releasing the 3rdsuspect to the custody of her parents.
We have considered the submissions of counsel and we are of theview, that in the circumstances stated above, the learned Magistratehad no authority to make an order releasing the 3rd suspect to thecustody of her parents, on a bond. In the case of Vaithyalingam Vs.Gnanapathipillai referred to above, Soertsz J. in a similar situationset aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed theMagistrate “ to have the girl produced before him and to tell her thatshe is free to go where she chooses ”. In the instant case, the girlin question has been produced as a suspect. It is inconceivable as to •how in a charge under Section 357 of the Penal code, (being theoffence disclosed in the report) the girl who is the alleged victim ofthe offence can also be treated as a suspect. Be that as it may, sincethe girl has been named a suspect, the Magistrate should rightlyconsider whether she should be' released on bail pending trial.
Accordingly we set aside the order dated 7.6.89 whereby theMagistrate released the 3rd suspect to the custody of her parents ona bond of Rs. 5,000/-. The Magistrate is directed to have the 3rdsuspect produced before the Magistrate on an early date and tomake an order releasing the 3rd suspect on bail or on a personalbond pending the trial of the case.
P.R.P. PERERA, J. – I agree.
Order set aside.