COLOMBO, November 13, 2026 – The Colombo High Court will decide on November 18 whether to suspend the bail order granted to Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa in the controversial Krrish transaction case, following a challenge by the Bribery Commission, which argues that his release could endanger witnesses and violate the Anti-Corruption Act.
Colombo High Court Judge Lal Bandara Ranasinghe fixed the date on Friday after considering submissions from the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) and lawyers representing Rajapaksa.
The Commission has filed a revision petition challenging the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s decision on November 3 to grant bail to the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) Parliamentarian.
CIABOC is seeking an interim order suspending the Magistrate’s ruling, pending a final determination of its revision application.
The prosecution maintains that the original bail decision was contrary to the statutory restrictions governing suspects produced before court under Section 149 of the Anti-Corruption Act.
Rajapaksa’s legal team rejects that interpretation, arguing that the Magistrate acted within the law after considering exceptional personal circumstances.
Bribery Commission Argues Bail Order Violates the Law
Appearing for CIABOC, Assistant Director (Legal) Thanuja Bandara argued that the legal requirements under Section 149(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act had not been properly applied.
She submitted that where the Director General of the Commission issues the relevant certificate, the law imposes restrictions on releasing a suspect from remand custody.
According to Bandara, the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s decision to grant Rajapaksa bail on November 3 was inconsistent with those requirements.
The Commission consequently asked the High Court to suspend the operation of the bail order immediately and ultimately set it aside.
The prosecution also raised concerns about the safety of witnesses and the potential consequences of granting bail while investigations remain sensitive.
CIABOC Warns of Possible Witness Intimidation
Bandara told the court that two witnesses had come forward and provided evidence without fear after Rajapaksa was remanded.
She argued that the circumstances demonstrated the importance of protecting witnesses from possible intimidation or interference.
The Commission also referred to a witness identified as Nimal Perera, who Bandara said was residing in Australia because of threats to his life.
CIABOC maintained that allowing the bail order to remain in effect could create a risk of pressure being exerted on witnesses.
The prosecution therefore requested an interim suspension while the High Court considers the legality of the Magistrate’s decision.
These submissions represent the Commission’s concerns and allegations. They do not establish that Rajapaksa has intimidated witnesses or attempted to interfere with the investigation.
Ali Sabry Challenges Request for Immediate Suspension
President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, appearing for Rajapaksa, strongly opposed the Commission’s request.
He questioned the urgency of seeking an interim order when his client was already being held in remand custody in connection with separate proceedings.
Sabry argued that the circumstances did not justify the immediate intervention sought by CIABOC.
Citing Supreme Court decisions, he submitted that relief amounting to the final outcome of a case should not ordinarily be granted through a temporary interim order.
The defence maintained that the Commission was effectively attempting to obtain the substantive relief sought in its revision petition before the High Court had fully determined the application.
Sabry also defended the Magistrate’s original decision, arguing that bail had been granted after proper consideration of exceptional circumstances.
Mother’s Serious Heart Condition Cited as Exceptional Circumstance
The defence said Rajapaksa’s mother’s serious heart condition had been placed before the Magistrate as a special circumstance supporting his bail application.
Sabry maintained that the Magistrate had acted within the applicable legal framework when considering that medical situation.
He rejected the suggestion that the bail decision was unlawful and argued that the Commission had failed to establish sufficient grounds for the interim suspension.
The dispute therefore centres on two competing legal positions.
CIABOC argues that the statutory restrictions on bail and concerns about witness protection justify immediate intervention.
The defence maintains that exceptional circumstances were properly considered and that the requested interim relief would improperly anticipate the final decision on the revision petition.
Rs. 70 Million Krrish Transaction Under Investigation
The proceedings arise from allegations involving Rs. 70 million connected to the Indian Krrish group’s proposed development project in Colombo.
The money has featured in legal proceedings concerning payments associated with the proposed development and the promotion of rugby in Sri Lanka.
In the bribery investigation underlying the disputed bail order, CIABOC alleges that Rajapaksa accepted Rs. 70 million to facilitate land-related arrangements associated with the Krrish project at Transworks Square in Colombo Fort.
A separate High Court case concerns allegations of criminal breach of trust involving money allegedly obtained for rugby promotion.
The two proceedings must be distinguished, although both relate to the Krrish transaction and the same reported Rs. 70 million.
Rajapaksa has contested allegations arising from the transaction, and no finding of guilt is established by the present bail proceedings.
On November 3, Colombo Chief Magistrate Asanga S. Bodaragama granted bail subject to a cash bail of Rs. 100,000 and three sureties of Rs. 5 million each.
The Magistrate also imposed an overseas travel ban and conditions prohibiting interference with prosecution witnesses.
Despite obtaining bail in the Krrish bribery proceedings, Rajapaksa remained in custody because of separate proceedings connected to the Airbus investigation.
Two Important High Court Dates Fixed
After hearing submissions from both sides, Judge Ranasinghe reserved his decision on the Commission’s application for interim relief.
The ruling is scheduled for November 18.
The High Court also fixed November 25 to consider the defence’s application seeking the dismissal of CIABOC’s revision petition.
The two dates concern separate legal questions.
On November 18, the court is expected to determine whether the existing bail order should be suspended pending further consideration.
On November 25, it is scheduled to examine the defence’s request to reject the Commission’s revision application.
Neither hearing, by itself, will determine whether Rajapaksa is guilty of the underlying allegations.
The immediate question before the High Court is whether the Magistrate lawfully exercised the power to grant bail and whether the Commission has established sufficient grounds for suspending that decision.
The November 18 ruling will determine the immediate status of the disputed bail order, while the wider challenge to its legality remains before the court.
