The petitioner was travelling in a bus at Nawalapitiya when he was arrested by the 3rd respondent. He was not informed the reason for his arrest. He was taken to a security personnel camp and kept there and repeatedly assaulted by the 3rd respondent and other security personnel. He was forced to make a statement on the lines suggested by the 3rd respondent. He was not released after his statement as promised but continued to be kept in unlawful detention. The respondent said the petitioner was arrested because he was stated to be
acquainted with the facts of a case of robber/’of a gun from Rozella Farm which was being investigated. He wanted the petitioner to accompany’ him to the Ginigathena Police Station.
A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that the application was filed out of time. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the arrest was illegal the detention orders were bad as the Emergency had lapsed during their currency and the affidavits of 1.. 2 and 3 respondents had been filed out of time in contravention of Rule 65(4) of the Supreme Court- Rules’ of 1978.
The judgement was the Petitioner has not established that his fundamental rights, assured to him by Article 1 1 and -1-3(2). have been violated by the Respondents. I hold’ that since the 3rd Respondent had unlawfully arrested the. Petitioner on 28.7.86 and failed to inform the Petitioner the reason for his arrest the 3rd Respondent had violated Petitioner’s. fundamental rights assured to him by Article 13(1), In the exercise Of the powers under Article 126(4) of the .Constitution; I order the State, represented in these proceedings by the Attorney General to pay the Petitioner Rs. 3000/- as compensation for such violation. and he Petitioner’s application is allowed to the extent indicated
above. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own costs.
