Anti-Corruption Commission Vs. Jesmin Islam and another, 3 LNJ (AD) (2014) 156

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2014

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Md. Khurshid Alam Khan,Rafique-ul-Huq,,

Citation: 3 LNJ (AD) (2014) 156

Appellant: Anti-Corruption Commission

Respondent: Jesmin Islam and another

Subject: Anticipatory Bail,

Delivery Date: 2014-02-10

APPELLATE DIVISION
(CRIMINAL)
 
Md. Muzammel Hossain, C. J.
Surendra Kumar Sinha, J
Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah, J
Hasan Foez Siddique, J
A.H.M. Shamsuddin Choudhury, J.

Judgment on
10.02.2014
  Durnity Daman Commission 
….Petitioner
Versus
Jesmin Islam and another
…Respondents
 

Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 498
The Appellate Division has repeatedly held that granting anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary remedy and an exception to the general rule of bail which can be granted only in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances upon a proper an intelligent exercise of discretion. This being the position of law settled by the Appellate Division, the High Court Division cannot exercise its discretion whimsically at its sweet will. Moreso, the Durnity Daman Commision is a necessary party but the accused-respondent has not made it a party. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. . . . (2 and 3)

For the Petitioner: Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record.

Respondent: Mr. Rafique-ul-Haque, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record.

Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 27 of 2014
 
O  R  D  E  R
 
This petition at the instance of Durnity Daman Commission is against an interim order enlarging respondent Jesmin Islam, wife of Tanvir Ahmed, 205/4, Begum Rokeya Sharani, West Kafrul, Taltola, Sher-E-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka enlarging her on anticipatory bail for a period of 1(one) month from the date of order dated 19th January, 2014.

The case in question was instituted with the Ramna Police Station under section 26(2) of the Durnity Daman Ain, 2004. The High Court Division exercised its discretionary power without assigning any reason whatsoever. It simply said that it found prima-facie case in favour of the accused-respondent. This is not a legal ground for exercising the power. We have repeatedly held that it is an extra-ordinary remedy and an exception to the general rule of bail which can be granted only in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances upon a proper an intelligent exercise of discretion. This being the position of law settled by this Division, the High Court Division cannot exercise its discretion whimsically at its sweet will.
 
We have given a cursory glance of the application for pre-arrest bail. The grounds are also not relevant for the purpose of exercising discretion in the case. More so, the case having been filed by the Durnity Daman Commission in exercise of its power under Act of 2004, the Durnity Daman Commission is a necessary party but, the accused-respondent has not made it a party. Considering the above, we find that the High Court Division has not properly exercised it discretion in granting the accused-respondent on anticipatory bail. The impugned judgment is set aside. This petition is disposed of with the above observations.
 
Ed.