What Were the Bail Conditions Imposed on Ven. Pallegama Hemarathana Thero..?

Numerous Revelations Surface in Court Regarding the Case

Ven. Pallegama Hemarathana Thero, the Chief Incumbent of the sacred Atamasthana in Anuradhapura, who had been remanded in custody over allegations of the grave sexual abuse of a minor girl, was released on stringent bail conditions by the Chief Magistrate and Additional District Judge of Anuradhapura, Siyapath Sasindu Wickramaratne. The victim’s mother, who had also been remanded on charges of intentionally aiding and abetting the alleged abuse of her daughter in exchange for money, was likewise granted bail under severe conditions.

Accordingly, the Chief Magistrate ordered two personal bail bonds valued at Rs. 5 million each for Ven. Hemarathana Thero, in addition to a cash bail of Rs. 100,000. The Court further issued an overseas travel ban against the suspect monk and instructed the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration to enforce the restriction. The Magistrate sternly warned the suspect not to interfere with witnesses in any manner.

The Court further observed that if any attempt were made to influence witnesses, the bail granted to the suspect would immediately be revoked and he would be remanded once again. Meanwhile, the victim’s mother was ordered to furnish two personal bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 each and was similarly prohibited from leaving the country. These orders were issued when the matter was once again taken up before the Anuradhapura Magistrate’s Court.

Submissions Made on Behalf of the Defence

When the case was called, Chief Inspector P.M. Anura Gunawardena of the Nittambuwa Police Headquarters informed Court that the preliminary investigations into the matter had been completed. He further stated that extracts of the investigation had already been forwarded to the Attorney General for legal advice.

Appearing on behalf of the first suspect, President’s Counsel Kalinga Indatissa submitted that, since the police themselves had acknowledged that investigations were complete and the relevant materials had been referred to the Attorney General, there remained no legal impediment to granting bail to his client.

The President’s Counsel also categorically rejected allegations that the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and Public Security had exerted influence over the investigations. He emphasized that his client had cooperated fully with investigators throughout the process and had not attempted to interfere with the inquiry in any way. Following lengthy submissions, counsel requested that the Court release the suspect monk on any conditions deemed appropriate. He further maintained that the allegations of grave sexual abuse against a minor were categorically denied by his client.

“We Had to Chase the Police with a Cane” — National Child Protection Authority

Making submissions under the instructions of retired High Court Judge Inoka Ranasinghe, Chairperson of the National Child Protection Authority, Attorney Sajeevani Abeykoon, Director of Law Enforcement at the Authority, stated before Court that the Authority had effectively been compelled to “follow the police with a cane” in order to secure the arrest of the suspect monk.

She alleged that despite the minor girl providing highly credible and detailed evidence accusing Ven. Hemarathana Thero of sexually assaulting her, the police had merely visited the temple where he resided, recorded statements from him, and thereafter permitted him to remain at liberty.

Eighty-Four Telephone Conversations Between the Monk and the Girl

Attorney Abeykoon further revealed that the victim had specifically identified the residential quarters where the alleged abuse took place, accurately describing the route to the room and identifying objects located therein. She also stated that the girl had identified a cloth or mat allegedly used by the suspect monk to wipe semen after sexual intercourse.

The attorney further informed Court that investigations had established that the child had been summoned repeatedly—sometimes every three days—and subjected to abuse over an extended period. She added that Judicial Medical Officer Dr. Chaminda Rajakaruna had concluded, through forensic medical examination, that the child had been subjected to prolonged sexual penetration.

She also stated that telephone analysis reports had already confirmed the existence of eighty-four telephone conversations between the suspect monk and the victim. Raising broader social concerns, the attorney questioned whether ordinary citizens could realistically gain such direct telephone access to a powerful religious figure who allegedly possessed considerable religious, political, and financial influence.

Attorney Abeykoon additionally disclosed that underwear belonging to the victim, allegedly stained with blood following the abuse, had been discovered buried underground. She strongly criticized the police for delaying the arrest of the suspect despite what she described as overwhelming evidence, thereby enabling him to continue living freely. She further alleged that even video evidence from the child had not yet been formally recorded by investigators.

In a particularly severe criticism, the attorney accused the police of repeatedly deviating from lawful investigative procedure and undermining the administration of justice throughout the inquiry. She asserted that senior police officials had failed to provide satisfactory explanations as to why the suspect monk had not been arrested earlier, despite substantial evidence against him.

Allegations of Influence and Institutional Failure

The attorney further alleged that the suspect’s wealth, religious authority, and institutional power had continued to obstruct and dilute the investigative process. She argued that a monk who had entered the Buddhist order professing to renounce desire, hatred, and delusion had instead acted in direct contradiction to Buddhist moral principles.

Referring to Buddhist teachings, she observed that although the Buddha had shown boundless compassion toward marginalized individuals such as Sunita and Sopaka, the manner in which the suspect monk allegedly treated the minor victim revealed a profound ethical contradiction.

The attorney further claimed that the suspect monk had suddenly developed health complications only after the Court issued warrants for his arrest, despite previously displaying no such urgent medical condition. She stated that his ailments were merely ordinary chronic illnesses commonly associated with advanced age.

She also contended that had the victim not been apprehended alongside her boyfriend in an unrelated circumstance, the alleged abuse might never have come to light. According to her submissions, many media institutions had remained conspicuously silent regarding the matter due to the suspect monk’s religious and social influence.

Questions Regarding Equality Before the Law

Attorney Abeykoon questioned whether religious leaders were somehow exempt from the operation of the Penal Code. She further argued that police officers had failed to properly present facts before Court in accordance with established legal procedure.

She also submitted that if the victim’s mother had indeed sold her minor daughter to the suspect monk in exchange for money, then the act of obtaining the child for sexual exploitation in return for payment constituted a grave offence in itself. However, she claimed that the police had failed to adequately present those facts before Court.

Legal Representation and Security Measures

The prosecution was represented by Chief Inspector P.M. Anura Gunawardena of Nittambuwa, Chief Inspector R.M. Jayaweera of Anuradhapura Headquarters Police, and Sub-Inspector A.C. Dayananda of the Children and Women’s Bureau of the Anuradhapura Police.

The defence for Ven. Hemarathana Thero included President’s Counsel Kalinga Indatissa alongside nearly twenty attorneys-at-law and senior counsel. Meanwhile, the victim’s rights were represented by senior legal practitioners including Swarnamali Anuradhanayake and Asith Siriwardena.

A large number of senior Buddhist monks from major temples in Anuradhapura were also present in Court to observe proceedings. Given the sensitivity and public significance of the case, extraordinary security arrangements were implemented both inside and outside the Anuradhapura Court Complex, including the deployment of special police units and members of the Special Task Force.

Charges Filed Before Court

Police have informed Court that Ven. Pallegama Hemarathana Thero faces charges under Section 365B(2)(b) of the Penal Code (as amended by Act No. 22 of 1995) for grave sexual abuse of a minor, as well as charges under Section 364(2)(e) relating to the rape of a minor girl.

The victim’s mother, meanwhile, faces allegations under Section 360A(1)(a) of the Penal Code (as amended by Act No. 16 of 2006) concerning trafficking in persons and aiding and abetting the offences allegedly committed by the first suspect.