& 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

Fakhrul's Imprisonment

A blatant abuse of the law

NEWS ANALYSIS

SHAKHAWAT LlTON and CHAITANYA CHANDRA HALDER
For Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, his freedom and imprisonment appear to play a game of "hide and seek”, as BNP's acting secretary general's lawyers procure bail in one case, like magic, another case pops up in which he is shown arrested. With 22 cases now staked against him, police will have enough cases to pop up and keep him in jail for months, even if he is granted bail every time a case comes to court.
That's not all. One court finds him the most dangerous person for law and order. But then another court finds him good enough to walk out on bail.
Fakhrul's brush with such blatant harassment began on the evening of December 10,2012.
He was arrested on that day in connection with two cases filed with Paltan and Sher-e-Bangla Nagar police stations for allegedly vandalising a city corporation garbage truck and blasting cocktails during the opposition-sponsored road blockade on December9,2012.
The next day, counsels of Fakhrul moved to the chief metropolitan magistrate's court seeking bail, which he was denied in both cases.
The magistrate said the transport damaging case was non-bailable. It did not matter that non-bailable means it was up to the judge to allow a bail or not. In not allowing Fakhrul bail, the judge must have found him to be a person who posed high security threat.
Then his lawyers moved to metropolitan session judge (vacation). The session judge also thought he was a dangerous person not to be allowed to fight his case while free on bail.
Moreover, the session judge in his order in both the cases said law and order might deteriorate, security of public life and property might be hampered, and investigation into the cases might also be hampered if Mirza Fakhrul was released from jail on bail.
"Considering overall situation and importance of
the allegation the bail petitions of the accused were rejected," read the order issued on December 24.
Denied bails, counsels of Fakhrul moved to the High Court seeking reversal of the situation.
Unlike the session judge, the High Court, however, did not find Fakhrul a threat to law and order and security of public life and properties. It granted him six months' bail.
Fakhrul might have been happy thinking his freedom is near. If so, then he had forgotten the crafty cops who know the rules of the game. They had, by now, filed 20 more cases where they mentioned Fakhrul as the instigator to violence.
These cases now became handy.
As Fakhrul's lawyers furnished bail bonds to the CMM court for his release, the cops stood against his release and prayed to the CMM to accuse him in two such cases filed with Sutrapur and Motijheel police stations.
The CMM allowed police to implicate him and show Fakhrul “arrested” in the two new cases which were filed much earlier, and in which police did not accuse him at the time.
Fakhrul's lawyers prayed for bail again, and again it was denied.
The irony is that all of those who were accused in this case (Sutrapur case) for obstructing police in their duty, got bail. Fakhrul was not an accused. Yet he did not get bail from the magistrate's court.
The magistrate's observation on Fakhrul was quite a paradox.
He said Fakhrul was not an accused in the case. Allegations against him are not specific either. The accused is sick. He has stent in his heart.
But then the baffling decision came: "Considering these, both petitions for bail and remand were rejected."
His confounded lawyers moved to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court.
Fakhrul got bail as he was not mentioned in the case filed by the police.
“The accused is acting secretary general of opposition party and there is no possibility of him being a fugitive if he is granted bail," the judge observed.
But freedom was still elusive for Fakhrul. He did not get bail in the other case of cocktail blast filed with Motijheel Police Station.
The judge thought Fakhrul was not long enough in jail and so, the judge probably thought, a little more time spent in jail would do him good. The judge said: “He is in jail for not a long time. Therefore, considering all aspects, bail petition was rejected."
As if one case—the one with Sutrapur police station--was not good enough to tie Fakhrul to jail, the cops implicated him in two more cases now. Thus the litany of cases went on.
Fakhrul now has 20 cases against him in connection with violence during the road blockade. There are 18
cases where he can be implicated in the same way. He is accused in two other cases filed in connection with arson and hurling cocktails inside the secretariat in April, 2012.
For a long time of his foreseeable political life, or as long as he stays in the opposition, Fakhrul will have a lot on his hand-trying to get out of the jail— until he has spent enough time behind bars and softened up or rather becomes “wise”. Political harassment under the guise of legality is nothing new. Those who are old enough, remember this to go back to the British days. Our period with Pakistan saw more blatant use of the law to cower political opponents. We saw the same in Bangladesh period, which is being repeated now. The same three periods also testify to the fact that these methods have never worked. In fact it had the reverse effect. Our people always support the underdog.