Anti-Corruption Commission Vs. Syed Tanveer Ahmed and another, V ADC (2008) 383

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1804 of 2007

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Rafique-ul-Huq,Sirajul Huq ,,

Citation: V ADC (2008) 383

Case Year: 2008

Appellant: Anti-Corruption Commission

Respondent: Syed Tanveer Ahmed and another

Subject: Bail,

Delivery Date: 2008-1-30

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
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
 
Anti Corruption Commission
..................Petitioner
Vs.
Syed Tanveer Ahmed and another
……............Respondents
 
Judgement
January 30, 2008.
 
Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Section 19 (Gha)
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)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Shah Md. Sirajul Hoque, Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahabubur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For the peti­tioner.
Rafique-ul-Huq, Senior Advocate, Ahsanul 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 appearing 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 parties, if so advised, may take step for disposal of the aforesaid writ petition expeditiously.
 
The petition for leave to appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
 
Ed.