Anti Corruption commission Vs. Syed Tanveer Ahmed and another

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Anti Corruption commission……………. Petitioner

–VS-

Syed Tanveer Ahmed and another…………………. Respondents

JUSTICES

Mohammad Fazlul Karim J

M.M. Ruhul Amin J

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Md. Joynul Abedin J

Md. Hassan Ameen J

Md. Abdul Matin J

Order Dated:30th January 2008

The Emergency Power Rules, 2007, Section 19(Gha)

The petitioners have been charged under offences including that of Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 and Rule 19(Gha) prohibits enlargement or bail…………… (4)

The learned Counsel appering for the Respondent has submitted that the order of the High Court Division dated 18.11.2007 has already been executed accepting the bail bonds and the accused have been released from the jail custody on 05.11.2007………………. (5)

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provision of law, the accused are required to be re-arrested if they have already been released from custody…………………………. (6) ”

We find substance in the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The grounds upon which the bail was granted do not inspire our confidence in view of the above provision of Section 19(Gha) of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007. Accordingly we are not inclined to enlarge the accused on bail …………….(7)

Accordingly, it is ordered that the order passed by the High Court Division on 8.11.2008 in Writ Petition No. 9581 of 2007, is hereby, vacated and the accused must be taken to custody if they have already been enlarged on bail………………… (8)

The perties, if so advised, may take step for disposal of the aforesaid writ petition

Expeditiously………………………….. (9)

Shah Md. Sirajul Hoque, Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahabubur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record…………………….. For the petitioner

Rafique-ul-Huq, Senior Advocate, Ahsamd Karim Advocate with him, instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-record……………………… For the Respondents

Civil Petition For Leave To Appeal No. 1804 of 2007

(From the Order dated 13th November, 2007 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 9581 of 2007)

ORDER

This application under Article 103 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh is directed against the order dated 13th November 2007 passed by the High Court Division granting bail of the Respondent-writ-petitioners.

2. The writ-petitioner No. 1 alleged that he has suffered head injury in an incident while saving the life of a worker being hurt with a shaft of a container resulting in blood clog in his brain and accordingly, suffering from ‘Sub Dufal riaemmorrhage’ causing brain disorder and resulting in impairment of his thought process and has been under constant supervision of a neurologist. As he can not take any stress or anxiety and in support thereof he filed medical certificate marked as Annexure-C.

3. The petitioner No.2 has alleged that he has been suffering from dematomyosits’ and required to be under the supervision of a Neurologist and any slightest tension and anxiety may cause serious nervous breakdown and he has been advised not to take any degree on mental stress, pressure and anxiety and advised to lead life in a peaceful family environment but no medical certificate has been annexed to above effect.

4. Admittedly the petitioners have been charged under offences including that of Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 and Rule 19(Gha) prohibits enlargement or bail.

5. The learned Counsel appering for the Respondent has submitted that the order of the High Court Division dated 18.11.2007 has already been executed accepting the bail bonds and the accused have been released from the jail custody on 05.11.2007

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provision of law, the accused are required to be re-arrested if they have already been

released from custody.

7. We find substance in the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The grounds upon which the bail was granted do not inspire our confidence in view of the above provision of Section 19(Gha) of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007. Accordingly we are not inclined to enlarge the accused on bail.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the order passed by the High Court Division on 8.11.2008 in Writ Petition No. 9581 of 2007, is hereby, vacated and the accused must be taken to custody if they have already been enlarged on bail. 9. The perties, if so advised, may take step for disposal of the aforesaid writ petition expeditiously.

10. The petition for leave to appeal is, accordingly, disposed of

Source : V ADC (2008),383

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.