Bangladesh: HC questions law barring public servants’ arrest without permission
The High Court on Sunday asked the Bangladesh government to explain the legality of Section 41(1) of Public Servant Act 2018 that requires prior approval from the government for arresting an accused public servant before the court’s acceptance of charge sheet in any criminal case against him or her.
The court also asked the government to explain the legality of Section 41(3) of the Public Servants Act that requires the trial courts to inform the government immediately after knowing that the accused people are public servants.
An online bench of Justice M Enayetur Rahim and Justice Md Mostafizur Rahman issued the rule after hearing a writ petition filed by journalist Ariful Islam from Kurigram.
Ariful filed the writ petition stating that the Public Servant Act prevented the members of the law enforcement agencies from arresting former Kurigram deputy commissioner Sultana Parveen, district’s former revenue collector Nazim Uddin, the district’s former assistant commissioners Rintu Kumar Chakma and SM Rahatul Islam during pendency of an attempt-to-murder case he filed against them.
The Kurigram police on March 31, 2020 recorded the attempt to murder case against the four public servants following a directive given the High Court on March 23, 2020.
Arif, in his case, alleged that on the dead of night on March 13, 2020 Ariful, Bangla Tribune’s Kurigram Correspondent, was sentenced by a mobile court led by Rintu Kumar Chakma to one year’s imprisonment on charge of carrying 100 grams of hemp and 450 grams of ethyl alcohol, but the allegations were later found baseless.
He further alleged that before his sentence by conducting a mobile court at the DC’s office, Ariful was abducted from his home and later he was subjected to torture by the three public servants on the instruction from the then deputy commissioner.
The High Court on Sunday also asked the government to explain the legality of recent posting of SM Rahatul Islam to Barishal Sadar to the rank of assistant commissioner and executive magistrate as Rahat was still a fugitive accused in the attempted to murder case.
The court also asked Sultana, Nazim and Rintu to explain why it would not be directed to refrain them from posting as they were also ‘fugitive’ in the case.
The three were attached to public administration ministry after their withdrawal from Kurigram after the four public servants were prosecuted over the Arif’s incident.
The petitioner’s lawyer Azizur Rahman Dulu argued that the three public servants were showed ‘fugitive’ as per the case docket of the case as they did not surrender or sought bail in the case.
The court also asked the government to explain why it would not be directed to refrain Sultana, Nazim, Rintu from posting anywhere as they were also ‘fugitive’ in the case.
New Age
