& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Man bailed out despite non-bailable charge

CHAITANYA CHANDRA HALDER
The chief metropolitan magistrate (CMM) in Dhaka has granted bail to a man charged with non-bailable offences under the Special Powers Act, triggering mixed reactions among lawyers.
The court premises were abuzz with lawyers' discussions on how or which way CMM Mohammad Ayub allowed the bail at the primary stage of investigation.
The CMM apparently took the recommendation of Abdul Mannan, ruling BNP lawmaker for Dhaka-10 constituency, into cognisance in allowing the bail on November 20 to Babul Akhter, charged with smuggling cellphone sets into Bangladesh.
Babul got the ad-interim bail on a bond of Tk 50,000 with the BNP leader, also a retired major, among two guarantors.
According to the allegation in the case filed with the Airport Police Station on November 3, Babul entered the VIP Lounge of Zia International Airport flying in from Hong Kong with two bags that customs officials scanned only to find 752 cellphone sets, worth about Tk 80 lakh.
The first information report (FIR) says Babul's friend Sheikh Mojibur Rahman Iqbal took him into the VIP lounge through the boarding bridge of the airport in an apparent bid to dodge tax.
Customs Inspector Wazed Ali seized the cellphone sets and filed
a case against Babul under Section 3 (1) of the Import and Export Control Act 1950, under Section 25 (B) of the Special Powers Act, 1974 and Sections 15, 16 and 32 of the Customs Act, 1969.
The Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate sent Babul to Dhaka Central Jail on November 7 after he was taken to court on expiry of a two-day remand.
The defence lawyer, praying for bail on November 13, told the court Babul was arrested on a 'trumped-up' charge, adding his client did not commit any crime, nor did he bring any illegal goods in.
"Babul declared to the customs the goods he brought with him and wanted to pay tax. But the customs officials did not hear him and filed the case to harass him," said the lawyer, who submitted the lawmaker's recommendation letter for the accused.
The letter pegged Babul as a political aide and famous businessman who came from the lawmaker's constituency.
"I believe he was not involved in activities subversive to the state. It is also to be noted that he wanted to pay tax for the goods he brought with him. But the customs officials did not listen to him," the lawmaker said in the letter, guaranteeing that the accused would pay the tax on the goods, if he was released on bail.
Section 25 B (1) of the Special Powers Act says: "Whoever, in breach of any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any law for the time being in force, or evading payment of customs duties or taxes, leviable thereon under any law for the time being in force, or brings into Bangladesh any goods, shall be punishable with death, or with (imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years and shall not be less than two years), and shall also be
liable to fine."
A senior lawyer, asking not to be named, described the charges brought in the FIR as non-bailable and said the magistrate should not have granted bail as the case was in the primary stage of investigation.
He said the recommendation by the lawmaker might intimidate the investigating officer into bending the probe.
The lawmaker could not be contacted on several attempts for comments.
Meanwhile, Dhaka Metropolitan Sessions Judge Matiur Rahman in a letter on April 16 last year directed the chief metropolitan magistrate and his colleagues not to release any accused on bail in a criminal case in which there is a provision for punishment exceeding 10 years.
Moreover, he or they cannot release an accused on bail in a criminal case in which he or they are not especially empowered by the government or by the legislature to take cognisance of such offence referred in section 167(5)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the letter pointed out.