In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

  High Court Division

  (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

         MR. JUSTICE ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN

AND

              MR. JUSTICE KHANDAKER DILIRUZZAMAN

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 4292 of 2022

Md. Ismail Miah......….…...Informant petitioner 

-Versus-

The State and others.…...............Opposite parties Mr. Sakib Mabud, Advocate

.........For the informant petitioner Mr. Imran Ahmed Bhuiyan, DAG with

Mr. Mehadi Hasan (Milon), AAG and

Ms. Aleya Khandker, AAG

........For the state

Heard and judgment on: The 1st of August, 2023 ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued on an application filed by the accused petitioner under section 439 read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order dated 08.05.2022, 09.05.2022 and 17.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cumilla in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2183 of 2022,  2211  of  2022  and  2413  of  2022,  arising  out  of Daudkandi  Model  Police  Station  Case  No.  41  dated 31.07.2020, corresponding to Daudkandi G.R. No. 181 of 2020 under sections 447/448/323/302/34 of the Penal Code should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

For disposal of the Rule, the relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows:

That the petitioner as informant lodged an FIR with the local police station alleging inter alia that due to previous enmity  one  Abul  Kashem,  the  brother  of  the  informant earlier filed one police case (Police Station Case No. 06 dated 16.05.2020) against the accused petitioner and others under sections 143 /341 /448 /323 /380 /427 /506 of the Penal  Code.  After  released  from  jail,  the  FIR  named accuseds became very furious. On the date of occurrence dated 30.07.2020, the FIR named the accused came to the house  of  the  informant  along  with  deadly  weapons  and caused  injury  to  the  informant  and  his  brother  deceased victim Abul Kalam. Thereafter, the victim Abul Kalam was taken  into  the  hospital  for  treatment  wherein  he  died on 31.07.2020 at night around 3.35 p.m. Hence, the aforesaid case was filed against the FIR named accused No. 1 and 15 along with others under sections 143/447/448/326/302/34 of the  Penal  Code.  Thereafter,  the  accused  opposite  party appeared before the Court below and obtained bail till to submitted  the  police  report.  After  submitting  the  police report, they were taken into the jail custody. Later on, the accused  opposite  parties  filed  the  aforesaid  Criminal Miscellaneous cases before the District Sessions Judge and prayed for bail which was allowed by the impugned orders. Being  aggrieved,  the  informant  petitioner  filed  this application before this Court under section 439 read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained the instant Rule and stay.

Mr.  Sakib  Mabud,  the  learned  Advocate  for  the accused petitioner submits that as per FIR and charge sheet there is a specific overt act against the accused opposite parties. Moreover, there is a confessional statement made by one  co-accused  named  Salim  Miah  wherein  it  has  been mentioned as to how the victim was killed and by whom but the learned Sessions Judge without considering the materials on record passed the impugned order and thereby granted bail to the accused opposite parties which is liable to be set aside.

No one appears for the opposite parties to oppose the

Rule.

Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the accused  petitioner  and  perused  the  materials  on  record thoroughly.

On perusal of the FIR along with other materials on record it transpires that undoubtedly it is very brutal murder case. However, the nature of the allegation as against the accused opposite parties (FIR named accused No. 7, 9 to 12) are appears to be a lump allegation. In considering the nature of the allegation, the learned Sessions Judge rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction of section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Under the given facts and circumstances of the case and  the  reasons  as  stated  above,  we  do  not  find  any substance of this Rule.

As a result, the Rule is discharged.

Communicate this judgment and order at once.

Khandaker Diliruzzaman, J:

I agree