DISTRICT: __________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL MIS. CASE NO. OF 2009.
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application for bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
A N D
IN THE MATTER OF:
Md. X
Son of Y
Village: Chapor Parbotipur
P.S. Rani Sangkoil
District: Thakurgaon
…. ACCUSED -PETITIONER
(IN JAIL CUSTODY)
-VERSUS-
The State, represented by
The Deputy Commissioner, Nilphamari
…. OPPOSITE PARTY
A N D
IN THE MATTER OF:
Order No. 2 dated 18.03.2009 passed by Mr. A.F.M. Aminul Islam, Session Judge, Nilphamari, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 39/09 arising out of Syedpur Thana Police Station Case No. 10 dated 23.02.2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 21/2009 under section 489(a) of the Penal Code and section 25(a) of the Special Power Act, 1974 now pending in the Senior Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilphamari, rejecting the application for bail.
To
Mr. Justice M. M. Ruhul Amin, the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and his companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.
The humble petition of the Accused -petitioner above named most respectfully –
S H E W E T H:-
1. That the accused-petitioner is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology of Rani Sangkoil K.B. Degree College under the district of Thakurgaon. He has been teaching Sociology in the said college with reputation for such a long time. The accused-petitioner permanently resides at Chapor Parbotipur village of Rani Sangkoil thana under the district of Thakurgaon. The accused-petitioner is a law abiding citizen of the country.
2. That Md. Abdul Kuddus, Manager (SPO) (the “informant”) of Sonali Bank Limited, Syedpur Branch, Nilphamari (the “Bank”) filed an Ejhar on 23.02.2009 in the Syedpur Police station and the officer-in-charge of the said police station recorded the same as Syedpur Police Station Case No. 10 dated 23.02.2009 under section 489(a) of the Penal Code and section 25(a) of the Special Power Act, 1974 and directed for its investigation.
3. That the prosecution alleging inter alia that Mr. B (the “FIR named accused ”), son of late E Khan, village: Natun Babu Para, Road: Aminul Huq Street, Thana: Syedpur, District: Nilphamari, visited the Bank on 11.02.2009 and he deposited by a deposit slip signed by him in his Current Account being No. 2482/2, a foreign D.D. issued by ENJAZ Exchange Co. (Banking Services of Bank Al Bilad, K.S.A.) being No. 786999 dated 02.02.09 for an amount of taka 88,109 (taka eighty eight thousand one hundred and nine) for clearance. Upon persistent demand from the FIR named accused to clear the same, the said D.D. was sent to the Head office of the Bank for issuance confirmation. The issuing Company confirmed to the Head office of the Bank that the said D.D. was forged.
A Certified copy of the F.I.R. is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-“A”
4. That the accused-petitioner contends, inter alia, that he had no business relation with the FIR named accused and he does not owe to the FIR named accused in any way to pay him any amount of money to clear the alleged outstanding dues. He has no relative in the K.S.A. to instruct to pay him or any other person any money in his favour. He did not receive the said D.D. in Syedpur sent from Dhaka through S.A. Paribahan. He also never instructed the FIR named accused to deposit the said D.D. in his account. The accused-petitioner is neither the beneficiary of the D.D. nor he deposited the same in the account of the FIR named accused. The FIR named accused is the beneficiary of the said D.D. and he himself deposited the said D.D. in his account for gaining the benefit from the forged D.D. illegally. Out of enmity, the name and cell number of the accused-petitioner were written in the envelope bearing the said D.D in order to damage the reputation of the accused-petitioner.
5. That on 25.02.2009 the accused-petitioner was arrested by the police and was forwarded to the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilphamari with a forwarding, who was pleased to send him in the jail-custody.
The certified copy of the said police forwarding dated 25.02.2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- “B”
6. That the accused-petitioner prayed for bail and the bail application was rejected by the learned Court being order No. 4 dated 05.03.2009.
The certified copy of the said order dated 05.03.2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-“C”
7. That being aggrieved with above order the accused-petitioner prays for bail before the learned Session Judge, Nilphamari and the bail application was rejected by him without assigning any lawful and valid reason. The learned Judge himself surprisingly invented a factual ground to reject the bail application which does not have any basis; neither was it mentioned in the F.I.R. nor in police forwarding that “the accused-petitioner is a member of fraud group and playing tactics to misappropriate government money by D.D.”. Although the F.I.R. does not disclose the Accused -petitioner ’s name but the learned Court below wrongfully rejected the bail application of the Accused -petitioner upon assuming a fact which was not stated in the F.I.R.
A certified copy of the rejection order being No. 2 dated 18.03.2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure: ‘D’
8. That on 23.02.09, the police have taken up the case for investigation and the investigation of the case is still going on without any progress and none can foresee when the investigation would be completed and the trial would be started.
9. That it is submitted that the provision of section 489A of the Penal Code, 1860 and section 25A of the Special Power Act, 1974 are as follows :-
489A. “Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency-note or bank-note, shall be punished with (imprisonment) for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
25A.Penalty for counterfeiting currency-notes and Government stamps-Whoever-
(a) counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counter-feting any currency-note or Government stamp; or
(b) sells to, or buys or receives from any person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any counterfeit currency-note or Government stamps, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be counterfeit; or
(c) makes, or performs any part of the process of making, or buys or sells or disposes of, or has in his possession, any machinery, instrument or material for the purposes of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for counterfeiting any currency-note or Government stamp, shall be punishable with death, or with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation- In this section-
(a) “counterfeit” has the meaning assigned to it in the Penal Code (XLV of 1860); and
(b) “Government stamp” means any stamp issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue.
No ingredients of the above mentioned provisions of law have been satisfied to incriminate the accused -petitioner.
10. That it is submitted that the accused-petitioner is quite innocent and he has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the instant Criminal Case out of enmity and baseless information.
11. That it is humbly submitted that the F.I.R. neither stated accused-petitioner’s name nor raised any allegation against him. He has been falsely entangled in the instant case at the instance of a vested quarter who are rival and inimical to him for reason unknown to him.
12. That it is humbly stated that the police forwarding report does not disclose any specific allegation against the Accused -petitioner.
13. That it is humbly stated that the accused-petitioner has been languising in the jail-custody since he was arrested on 25.02.2009 without any prospect of early disposal of the case.
14. That it is humbly submitted that the accused-petitioner has been apprehended out of mere suspicion on the basis of so-called business relation with the FIR named accused and during the investigation for about 1 (one) month, the investigating officer has failed to collect any information regarding the accused-petitioner ’s involvement with the alleged offence and thus the accused-petitioner has been made the victim of the circumstances.
15. That it is humbly submitted that the beneficiary of the alleged D.D. was the FIR named accused and not the accused-petitioner. The FIR named accused’s (beneficiary) name as beneficiary, his account number, bank name and branch name are mentioned in the D.D. The FIR named accused himself deposited alleged D.D. in his current account by himself by a deposit slip signed by him.
16. That it is humbly the accused-petitioner ’s wife gave birth a cesarean baby just before his arrest and due to his long custody, his wife has been passing great hardship in his absence and as such for the ends of justice the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
17. That it is humbly submitted that the accused-petitioner is a lecturer of Sociology Department in the Rani Sangkoil K.B. College and has the great reputation among students, teachers and local people for his excellence in teaching and good manner who has been languishing in jail custody for a period of about 1 (one) month for no reason.
18. That it is humbly submitted that the accused-petitioner was attending in his college “Rani Sangkoil K.B. Degree College”, Thakurgaon, at the time and date of alleged offence whereas the alleged offence was occurred at the office time of the date of alleged offence at Sonali Bank limited, Syedpur branch under the District of Nilphamari.
19. That the accused-petitioner has his settled occupation and home in his locality and there is chance for him to abscond if he is granted bail.
20. That this is a fit case where the accused-petitioner can be granted bail by your Lordships.
21. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order being No. 2 dated 18.03.09 the humble accused-petitioner begs to move this petition on the following amongst other-
G R O U N D S:
I. For that the impugned order being No. 2 dated 18.03.09 is illegal, unjust, improper and as such the same is liable to be set aside.
II. For that the accused-petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the instant Criminal Case out of enmity and baseless information and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged in bail.
III. For that the F.I.R. neither stated accused-petitioner’s name nor raised any allegation against him. He has been falsely entangled in the instant case at the instance of a vested quarter who are rival and inimical to him for reason unknown to him and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
IV. For that the learned Court below failed to take into consideration that FIR does not disclose accused-petitioner’s name and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
V. For that the no specific allegation is alleged against the accused-petitioner in the police forwarding report.
VI. For that the beneficiary of the alleged D.D. was the FIR named accused and not the accused-petitioner. The FIR named accused ’s (beneficiary) name as beneficiary, his account number, bank name and branch name are mentioned in the D.D. The FIR named accused himself deposited alleged D.D. in his current account by himself with a deposit slip signed by him and no prima-facie case has been disclosed to incriminate the accused-petitioner and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
VII. For that the accused-petitioner has been apprehended out of mere suspicion on the basis of so-called business relation with the FIR named accused and during the investigation for about 1 (one) month, the investigating officer has failed to collect any material information regarding the accused-petitioner ’s involvement with the alleged offence and thus the accused-petitioner has been made the victim of the circumstances and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
VIII. For that the accused-petitioner is a lecturer of Sociology Department in the Rani Sangkoil K.B. College and has the great reputation among students, teachers and local people for his excellence in teaching and good manner who has been languishing in jail custody for a period of about 1 (one) month for no reason and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
IX. For that the accused-petitioner ’s wife gave birth to cesarean baby just before his arrest and due to his long custody, his wife has been passing great hardship in his absence and as such for the ends of justice the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
X. For that the accused-petitioner was in his College in Thakurgaon at the time and date of the alleged offence.
XI. For that the accused-petitioner has been languising in the jail-custody since he was arrested on 25.02.2009 without any prospect of early disposal of the case.
XII. For that the accused-petitioner has his settled occupation and home in his locality and there is chance for him to abscond if he is granted bail.
XIII. For that the learned Court below wrongfully rejected the bail application of the accused-petitioner upon assuming a fact which was not even stated in the F.I.R and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
XIV. For that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is not at all involved with the alleged offence or with any activity linked to the alleged offence whatsoever.
XV. For that the accused-petitioner is a law abiding citizen of Bangladesh. He and hence, there is no chance for him to abscond if he is enlarged on bail. The accused-petitioner is ready to comply with any condition imposed by your Lordships.
XVI. For that there is no other allegation except the instant one against the accused-petitioner in any police station in Bangladesh.
XVII. For that the accused-petitioner is a lecturer of Rani Sangkoil K.B. Degree College and his profession is about to ruin due to his custody.
Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to issue a Rule calling upon the Opposite Party to show cause as to why the accused-petitioner should not be enlarged on bail in the Syedpur Thana Police Station Case No. 10 dated 23.02.2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 21/2009 under section 489(a) of the Penal Code and section 25(a) of the Special Power Act, 1974, and upon hearing both the parties, perusing the cause shown, if any, make the Rule absolute and pass such other or further order or orders as to your lordships may deem fit and proper.
AND
Pending hearing of the Rule, the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on ad-interim bail in the instant case.
And for this act of kindness the Accused -petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
A F F I D A V I T
I, ………………………………, son of ………………………., of Village- ………………………….., P.S. ……………………, ……………………….. aged about…………….. years by faith Muslim, by profession ………………………, nationality Bangladeshi by birth, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:-
01. That I am the Tadbirkar of the accused-petitioner and as such I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.
02. That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 1 to 18 hereinabove are true to my knowledge and matters of record, which I verily believe to be true and the rests are submission before this Hon’ble Court.
Prepared in my office
___________________________
(……………………………………..) DEPONENT
Advocate
………………….. Dhaka. The deponent is known to me and identified by me.
Solemnly affirmed before me by
the said ___________________ at
the Supreme Court premises, Dhaka
on this the 21st day of March,
2009 at 11A.M.
(…………………………………….)
Advocate
COMMISSIONER OF AFFIDAVITS
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION, DHAKA.
NOTICE
DISTRICT: NILPHAMARI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL MIS. CASE NO. OF 2009.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Md. X
…. ACCUSED -PETITIONER
(IN JAIL HAJOT)
-VERSUS-
The State
———–OPPOSITE PARTY
To,
The Attorney General
Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh.
Dear Sir,
Please take notice that an application for bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (copy enclosed herewith) will be filed and moved before this Hon’ble Court.
Yours faithfully.
________________
Advocate
For the Accused -petitioner .