Ain-o-Salish Kendra and others Vs.

Bangladesh, 2004, 56 DLR (HCD) (2004)

620.
Supreme Court
High Court Division
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Present:
Nozrul Islam Chowdhory J
Mir Hashmat Ali J
Ain-o-Salish Kendra and others..Petitioners
Vs.
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs.. Respondents
Judgment (September 20, 2004)
Lawyers Involved:
Dr. Kamal Hossain with Nizamul Huq, Ms. Sara Hossain, Abu Obaidur Rahman, MA Mannan & Ziaul
Hassan, Advocates- For the Petitioners.
Helaluddin Mollah, Deputy Attorney-General with Md. Abdul Baset and Md. Giasuddin Mithu, and AM
Shwakatul Huq, Assistant Attorney-General-For the Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 5464 of 2004
Judgment
Nozrul Islam Chowdhury J.- This writ petition was filed before this Court invoking Article 102 read
with Article 44 of the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh seeking production of accused
Shaibal Saha Partha now being detained in Dhaka Central Jail, before this Court to satisfy that he is not
being held in custody without lawful authority and or in an unlawful manner and for stay of operation of
the order of remand dated 16-9-2004 issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka in Motijheel PS
Case No 97(8)04.


2. Heard Dr. Kamal Hossain, the learned Counsel appearing with Mr. Nizamul Huq and Ms. Sara Hossain
on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Deputy Attorney-General Mr. Md Helaluddin Mollah, with
Mr. Mohammad Adbul Baset, Mr. Md. Giasuddin Mithu and Mr. AM Shwakatul Huq Assistant Attorney-
General on behalf of the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that accused Shaibal Saha Partha was
apprehended by plain clothes police and after 4 days he was produced before Dhanmondi Police Station
on 29-8-2004, and FIR was lodged on the same day with the allegation of offences under sections 419 and
505A of the Penal Code and eventually, Dhanmondi PS Case No. 61 dated 29-8-2004, was registered
which ultimately, gave rise to GR Case No. 444 of 2004 and in that case Partha was taken on remand by
the police on two occasions but no confession could be recorded from him. Thereafter, accused Partha
was also shown arrested in Motijheel PS Case No. 97(8) 2004, popularly known as Bomb Blast case,
and in connection with that case the accused Partha was once again taken on police remand which is
liable to be declared as without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
3. On the application as aforesaid we directed the respondent to produced the said accused before this
Court on 20-9-2004 at 11-00 AM and accordingly, the accused having been produced before this Court,
we made some queries directly from him and we have seen him in prison before us.
4. It appears from the facts and circumstances and materials placed before us that accused Partha had
already been taken on police remand twice in connection with Dhanmondi PS Case No. 61 dated 29-8-
2004 and once in connection with Motijheel PS Case No. 97(8) 2004 (Bomb Blast Case), the period of
which is yet to be over, as it appears from the submission of the learned Counsels. Yet there is nothing
before us to show the outcome of such repeated remands although the learned Deputy Attorney-General
appeared before us with submissions in detail, opposing the petition.
5. From the circumstances as aforesaid, we feel it proper to direct the respondents not to go for further
remand of the accused in connection with the said GR Case No. 444 of 2004 arising out of Dhanmondi
PS Case No. 61(8)04 dated 29-8-04 at the same time, having seen the accused in person before us, the
respondents are directed to take all possible steps to administer treatment to the accused in Bangabandhu
Shiekh Mujib Medical University Hospital, Dhaka immediately after the expiry of the period of remand
ordered on 16-9-2004, and the accused be allowed to remain in the said hospital till such time as is
required by the doctors attending him for the purpose.
6. It appears further that the accused has also been taken on remand in connection with Motijheel PS Case
No. 97(8)2004 for a period of five days commencing from 18th instant and, under such circumstances, the
respondents are directed further not to take accused on remand any further after 22-9-2004 in the said
case and even in course of the ongoing remand he should not be subject to physical torture of any kind as
envisaged under clauses 4 and 5 of Article 35 of the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.
With this direction as above this application is disposed of.
Mir Hashmat Ali J.- I agree.