Appellate Division Cases
Md. Sirajul Islam and others. ……………………………….Petitioners
The State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Chittagonj and another
Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain, CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim , J
M. A. Aziz, J
Amirul Kabir Chowdhury, J
Date of Judgment
17th April 2005
The petitioners were on bail from the beginning and on 06.09.1998, the date of framing charge against them all the petitioners were also present and as such the submission of learned Advocate that the proceeding is continuing in violation of the provisions of Sections 87/88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no leg to stand (4)
Mujibur Rahman, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Nawab Ali, Advocate -on-Record For the Petitioners A.S.M. Khalcquzzaman , Advocate-onrecord For Respondent No.2 Not represented Respondent No. I Criminal Petition for leave to appeal No. 126 of 2003
1. Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J :- This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2002 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 2381 of 1998 dismissing the appeal.
2. The facts, in short, are that one Md. Abdul Aziz on 05.01.1995 lodged First Information Report with Lohagara Police Station stating, inter alia, that on 04.01.1995 the accused petitioner No. 1 Md. Sirajul Islam and co-accused Abu Bakkar entered his hut while he was saying esha prayer and kicked him and told him that they were taking away his daughter Hasina Begum (18 ^ ) and thus dragged her catching hold of her hand and hair and that while he obstructed he was assaulted by them and then there were about 7/8 persons being armed with deadly weapons sanding outside and that the miscreants took her away by force and took her towards Adhunagar High School on a microbus and on the basis of aforesaid First Information Report, Lohagara Police Station Case No. 2 dated 05 01.1995 was started. After investigation charge sheet was submitted on 30.4.1995 against the petitioners and others under Section 4(b) (c) and Section 9 of the Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance, 1983. The Case being sent for trial the accused petitioners were allowed bail. The Tribunal fixed 06.09.1998 for hearing as to framing of charge if any. The accused petitioners filed application under Section 241A if the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2381 of 1998 before the High Court Division. A Division Bench of the said Division after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal and hence is this
3. In support of the petitioner Mr. Mujibur Rahman, learned Senior Advocate submits, inter alia, that the trial court without complying with the provisions of Sections 87/88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure framed charge against the accused in sheer violation of law and the High Court Division passed by the impugned judgment and order ignoring
the aforesaid violation of law.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate and perused the materials on record. It appears from order No. 1 dated 25.03.1997 passed by the Special Tribunal that the petitioners were on bail from the beginning and on 06.09.1998, the date of framing charge against them all the petitioners were also present and as such the submission of learned Advocate that the proceeding is continuing in violation of the provisions of Sections 87/88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no leg to stand.
5. It may be stated that Section 87 of the Code provides for issuing proclamation for person absconding in a criminal proceeding and Section 88 of the Code of provides for issuing order of attachment of property of person absconding. In the instant case it is already noticed that the accused petitioners have been on record, even present in court on the date of framing charge against them and as such the contention of the learned Advocate is bereft of any substance. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Source: III ADC (2006) 844