[I of 1975]
Rule 11—The language of Rule 11(3) admits of no ambiguity and therefore, there is hardly any scope for interpretation. The intention of the law makers is manifested in the express words used in sub-rule 3 leaving no scope to doubt that such power of granting bail by the appellate Court has been taken away by express provisions. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57.
Rule 11(1)—The expression “এই বিধিমালার অধীন” refers to the Emergency Powers Rules as a whole. It cannot mean and refer to Rule 10 only; otherwise the expression would have been “উক্ত বিধির অধীন” i.e. under the aforesaid Rule. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57.
Rule 11(2)—The High Court Division has correctly followed the observations made by this Division in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2008 in granting bail to the respondent No.1. The appeal could not be disposed of within ninety days and the respondent has already served out a substantial portion of sentence. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Sigma Huda 62 DLR (AD) 227.
Rule 11(3)—The language of Rule 11(3) admits of no ambiguity and therefore, there is hardly any scope for interpretation. The intention of the law makers is manifested in the express words used in sub-rule 3 leaving no scope to doubt that such power of granting bail by the appellate Court has been taken away by express provisions. ACC vs Barrister Nazmui Huda 60 DLR(AD)57.
Rule 11(3)—Bail in a pending appeal—The matter of granting bail by the High Court Division, during the period of emergency, in a pending appeal filed by the convict who has been convicted and sentenced under the provision of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in case of short sentence not exceeding 3 years, when the appeal could not be disposed of within 90 working days for no fault of the appellant andlor in the case of serious illness endangering life to be certified by duly constituted Medical Board, may consider the matter of granting bail in an appropriate case in an appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs Sabera Aman 62 DLR (AD) 246.
Rule 11(3)—Bail in a pending appeal— The convict-appellant has been suffering from multifarious illness endangering life “at his advanced age of 58 years and he needs specialized, continuous and supervised treatment in a stress less condition”. Accordingly, on the ground of serious illness endangering life the convict- appellant may enlarged on bail. Iqbal Hasan vs State 63 DLR 286.
Rule 15—It appears the petitioner was a Judge of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh having a respectable status in the society. He has also acted as an Adviser of the then Caretaker Government headed by Professor lajuddin Ahmed. Complying the notice of the Anti-Corruption Commission the petitioner submitted his wealth statement before the Anti-Corruption Commission wherefrom the commission has invented a discrepancy in his wealth statement and also other corruption committed by him during his tenure as Adviser of the Care-taker Government. He has retired from the Appellate Division at the age of 65 years and now running 70 with ailing health as appears even from his gestures.His application for bail is allowed consi dering the fact that he may be harassed by the vested quarters before his surrender in the trial Court. Faziul Haque vs State, ACC 60 DLR 648.
Rule 19 Cha—Section 498 provides for jurisdiction of the High Court Division and the Sessions Judge in granting bail under section 498 and application under section 498 cannot be entertained by any other Court, other than the High Court Division and the Sessions Judge and therefore, when the law makers mentioned section 498 they knew they were ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court Division and the Sessions Judge in entertaining applications under section 498 and therefore, the ouster has been deliberately done with manifest intention and by express words. Non-mention of the names of the Courts is irrelevant for the purpose. State vs Moyezuddin Sikder 60 DLR (AD) 82.
Rule 19 Gha—Arrest of Government servant in anti-corruption drive to catch hold any person or persons red-handed connected with the offence by any police officer not duly empowered by the Commission or the Commissioner in charge of the commission in laying the trap and conducting the trap operation by abusing official power is wild goose chase which by itself tantamounts to corruption therefore, and such exercise by police officer not empowered by the Commission as has been done in the instant case is prima fade, malafide and repressive and liable to be struck down and accused-petitioner unlawfully arrested and detained is liable to be released on bail despite bar to seek bail under Rule 19(Gha) of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007. Abdur Rashid vs State 60 DLR 629.
Rule 19 Gha—For the purpose of ouster, curtailment or restriction of jurisdiction of superior courts the framers of the law must use explicit expression—In the absence of such expression it can safely be held that this court is not intended to be covered by the operation of that law. Moyezuddin Sikder vs DC, Khulna 59 DLR 287.
Rule 19 Gha—In Rule 19 Ka the expression “কোন আদালত বা ট্রাইবুনালে” meant the Court and the Tribunal where trial is to take place and no other Court. How then the same expression can disclose a different meaning as submitted by the learned Additional Attorney-General, in Rule 19 Gha. The premises disclosed unmistakably suggest the answer in the negative—The same expression cannot bear one meaning in one part and a different meaning in the other part of the same legislation. Moyezuddin Sikder vs State, represented by the DC, Khulna 59 DLR 287.
Rule 19Gha—Can this court entertain an application under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not? Our reply is in the affirmative. Therefore, this Court can entertain applications under section 498 of the Code despite Rule 19 Gha of the said Rules, even with a nonobstante expression. Moyezuddin Sikder vs State, represented by the DC, Khulna 59 DLR 287.
Rule 19 Gha—From the foregoing discussions and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are led to hold that at this stage the accused petitioner cannot make – any application for bail, far less anticipatory bail, under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Accordingly, the instant application for anticipatory bail is summarily turned down. Ali Ahsan Mujahid vs State 60 DLR 359.