সতর্কীকরণ! বিডি কানুনে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে বিডি কানুন কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। বিডি কানুনে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Writ of Habeas Corpus
[74 DLR 126-128]
Submission on behalf of the petitioner
Mr Mohammad Humayun Kabir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner upon taking us to the writ petition, supplementary affidavit and that of the documents so appended therewith at the very outset submits that, actually the detenue has not been the real convict and no conviction or sentence was awarded against him and therefore, keeping him in jail is clear violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 27, 31, 32, 33 and 36 of the Constitution and as such, the respondents should be directed to release him from jail immediately.
The learned counsel further contends that, the detenue is an innocent person and has not committed any prejudicial act against the state and as such his confinement in jail custody is totally arbitrary, unlawful, reckless act on the part of the respondents and violative to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen of this country by our Constitution.
The learned counsel goes on to contend that, after long span of time of passing the judgment on 1-10-2012 in Sessions Case No. 2521 of 2005 the detenue Arman, was picked-up by the Pallabi Police showing him arrested in Pallabi Police Station Case being No. 61(8)05 corresponding to Special Case No. 2521 of 2005 and the learned Judge of Jananirapatta Bighnokari Aparadh Daman Tribunal, Dhaka without checking his identity sent him jail resulting in, the detenue has been in prison since 30-1-2016 and therefore his such illegal incarceration is liable to be declared without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
The learned counsel further contends that, various efforts have been taken by the widow mother and pregnant wife of the detenue including his near and dear ones to get him (the detenue) released running from pillar to post imploring to the police officials that, he is not any convict but the respondents did not pay any heed to such earnest request and therefore, the detention of the detenue is done on reckless use of power by the respondents and thereby he should be released immediately by awarding adequate compensation.
To buttress the above assertion, the learned counsel has relied upon a plethora of decisions in the case of Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar reported in 1983 SCR (3) 508; Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalit vs State of Orissa reported in 1993 SCR(2) 581; Chairman, Railway Board and others vs Mrs Chandrima Das reported in AIR 2000 (SC) 988; Government of Bangladesh vs Nurul Amin reported in 3 CLR (AD) 410 = 67 DLR (AD) 352; ZI Khan Panna vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, 4 CLR (HCD) 265; Children's Charity Bangladesh Foundation (CCB Foundation) vs Bangladesh reported in 5 CLR (HCD) 278 and Government of Bangladesh represented by its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Dhaka vs Children's Charity Bangladesh Foundation (CCB Foundation) represented by its Chairman Mr Md Abdul Halim, Dhaka reported in 6 CLR (AD) 282 and finally Md Rustom Ali vs The State reported in 5 CLR (AD) 154.
With the submission and relying on those decisions, the learned counsel finally prays for make the rule absolute giving adequate compensation for the prolong wrongful confinement of the detenue in the jail endured for the unlawful action of the respondents.
Submission on behalf of the respondent
Per contra, Mr Nawroz Md Rasel Chowdhury, the learned Deputy Attorney-General (hereinafter referred to as the "DAG") appearing for the respondent No. 5 that is, Officer-in-Charge of Pallabi Police Station, Kazi Wazid Ali filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the material statements made in the writ petition contending inter alia that, vide office order dated 18-4-2019, a three-member enquiry committee was formed at the order of Deputy Police Commissioner (Mirpur Division), DMP to determine the responsibility of the concerned police officers over the incident after it came across a news report dated 18-4-2019 published in a Bengali daily named "The Amader Shomoy" concerning the wrongful arrest and detention of one, Md Arman asking it to submit report by three working days.
Accordingly, vide letter dated 05-5-2019 containing Memo No. V/1673 DC/(Mirpur Divi sion), a detailed report was submitted by the Inquiry Committee headed by one Additional Deputy Police Commissioner (Mirpur Division), DMP, Dhaka to the Deputy Police Commissioner (Mirpur Division), DMP, Dhaka. The Deputy Police Commissioner then forwarded the said report to the Police Commissioner, DMP on 12-5 2019. Thereafter, on 12-9-2019 containing Memo No. V/3238/DC/(Mirpur Division), the Deputy Police Commissioner (Mirpur Division) wrote a letter to the Officer-in-Charge, Pallabi Police Station asking him to let him (Deputy Police Commissioner) know what legal step was taken about the detenue. On 4-11-2020 containing Memo No. V/4073/DC (Mirpur Division), the Deputy Police Commissioner (Mirpur Division) further wrote a letter to the Officer-in-Charge of the Pallabi Police Station asserting that, the detenue, Md Arman had been serving jail without committing any offence (এতে প্রমাণিত হয় যে মো. আরমান বিনা দোষে জেল খাটছে) and asked the said Officer-in-Charge of the Pallabi Police Station to make contact with Deputy Police Commissioner (Prosecution) and the Public Prosecutor (PP) and that of law section of DMP to take legal step to that effect.
It has further been asserted in the affidavit-in-opposition that, eventually by a provisional order (1) dated 20-10 2019, the Deputy Police Commissioner, Professional Standard and Internal Investigation, DMP, Dhaka found one, Sub-Inspector Hazrat Ali, Pallabi Police Station, Mirpur Division, DMP, Dhaka (afterwards he transferred to PBI, Munshiganj) and one, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Khan Emdadul Huq, Pallabi Police Station (afterwards he transferred to Shah Ali Police Station, Mirpur, Dhaka) negligent and incompetent to perform their duties and slapped major punishment upon them demoting to their immediate lower rank for five years made in pursuance of the departmental proceeding bearing Nos. 199 of 2019 and 200 of 2019 both dated 15 7-2019
Substantiating the action taken against the 2(two) delinquent police officials, the learned DAG contends that, in accordance with the departmental proceedings provisional order has already been passed followed by final order from the concerned authority and it has already been executed and now necessary legal steps are being taken to release the detenue, Md Arman from jail and as such, the instant rule is liable to be discharged.
It has further been contended by the learned DAG that, the matter in determining the quantum of compensation depends on taking evidence from the persons in question who is found to have detained and as such it may not be practically possible by this Hon'ble Court to fix the quantum of compensation and as such the instant rule is liable to be discharged insofar as regards to awarding compensation.
It has also been averred by the learned DAG that, steps taken by the respondent No. 4 is visible and appropriate and the respondent No. 4 is taking prompt steps in releasing the detenue Md Arman and as such the rule is liable to be discharged for end of justice.
The learned DAG goes on to submit that, nowhere in the instant writ petition any statement or any explanation has been given by the petitioner as regards to delay in seeking compensation before this Hon'ble Court and even the petitioner did not take any initiative before the court below to prove the identity of Md Arman in order to exonerate him from confinement and therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has not come before this Hon'ble Court with clean hand to seek compensation from the respondents and as such, the second part of the rule-issuing order relating to compensation is liable to be discharged.
The learned DAG next contends that, the determination of the compensation does not lie under the writ jurisdiction as there is no such provision under Article 102 of the Constitution to pass any order in relation to award compensation by the Hon'ble Court and as such, the rule is liable to be discharged for ends of justice.
আপনার কাঙ্খিত নজীরটি খুঁজে পাননি! এ বিষয়ে আরও নজীর পেতে নিচের বাটনে ক্লিক করুন।
