The Suresh Sallay writ petition heard claims involving Sara Jasmine, passport records and the legality of evidence gathered in France.
The Suresh Sallay writ petition returned before the Court of Appeal on July 27, with the state presenting arguments over allegedly concealed information, passport records and investigative obstruction.
Major General (Retired) Suresh Sallay, the former Director of the State Intelligence Service, filed the petition to challenge his arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. His detention relates to the continuing investigation into the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks.
The Court of Appeal heard the case before a bench comprising its President, Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya, and Justice Priyantha Fernando.
Deputy Solicitor General Suharshi Herath appeared for the respondents, including former Criminal Investigation Department Director Shani Abeysekara. She presented the state’s submissions after Sallay’s lawyers concluded their arguments during an earlier hearing.
Get Breaking News First
on WhatsApp
Suresh Sallay Writ Petition Raises Sara Jasmine Claims
Herath alleged that Sallay obstructed the investigation by promoting the position that Sara Jasmine had not died in the April 2019 Saindamarudu explosion.
She referred to statements attributed to former Deputy Inspector General of Police Prasad Ranasinghe. She also cited a B report submitted to the Fort Magistrate’s Court on March 11, 2026.
According to the state’s submissions, the B reports included information concerning Sara Jasmine’s DNA findings and passport details.
Herath also challenged Sallay’s account of his location during 2019.
The petitioner had maintained that he attended a security course in India from January until December that year and had not left India during that period.
However, the Deputy Solicitor General told the court that page 56 of Sallay’s official passport contained Indian immigration stamps recording a departure and entry during May and June 2019.
She further referred to statements from former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando and Asad Maulana. According to Herath, those statements indicated that Sallay had been in Sri Lanka around the period of the Easter attacks.
The state alleged that the petitioner failed to disclose that information when seeking relief from the court.
These remain submissions made by the respondents and have not yet become final judicial findings.
State Rejects Allegations Against Shani Abeysekara
Herath rejected the allegation that Shani Abeysekara had initiated the investigation maliciously.
She told the court that the inquiry began after Father Rohan Silva submitted a complaint to the Ministry of Public Security.
The first B report was filed on November 11, 2024. Investigators later obtained a foreign travel restriction on November 15.
Herath argued that Abeysekara was not serving in the Police Department at either stage. She said officials working under then-CID directors Mangala Dehideniya and Himesha Muthumalee handled the investigation.
The Deputy Solicitor General also defended the process used to record Asad Maulana’s statement in France.
Sallay’s counsel had earlier questioned the reliability and manner in which investigators obtained Maulana’s evidence abroad.
However, Herath said investigators acted legally under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act No. 24 of 2018 and relevant amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
She argued that investigators arrested Sallay on sufficient evidence and asked the court to dismiss the petition without proceeding to a further hearing.
Unpublished Report Draws Separate Objection
Attorney Surein D. Perera, representing respondent Father Rohan Silva, also raised an objection over documents attached to the petition.
He argued that the inclusion of a copy of the unpublished report by the Jayake de Alwis committee breached Court of Appeal procedural rules.
After considering the submissions, the Court of Appeal ordered that the Suresh Sallay writ petition be called again on July 28. The court is expected to fix a date for the petition’s further hearing.
