Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Abdul Awal being dead his heirs:- 1(a) Rokeya Begum and others-vs-Md. Abdul Karim Fakir and others
Discharged
2
Md. Sanowar Hossain-vs-Md. Zia and others
Discharged
3
Latifa Akter Shiuli -Vs- Daulatpur College (day and night), Khulna represented by the President of the Managing Committee and others
Rule Discharged
4
Mst. Asma Begum -Vs- Nurnnahar and others
Rule discharged as being infructuous
5
Md. Ahsan Ali-vs-The State and another
Allowed-in-part (Disposed of)
6
Md. Humayon Islam-vs- The State and another
Allowed-in-part (Disposed of)
7
Md. Ahsan Ali-vs-The State and another
8
Mohammad Rafiq and others Vs- Md. Abdul Motalib and others
Disposed of with above observation and direction
9
Nur Islam Mir and others-vs-A. Hamed and others
Absolute
10
Md. Shawkat Jaman Bachu Vs- Md. Bachu Fakir
11
Mowlana Abdul Khalik and others-Vs-Mohammad Anwar Miah and others
12
Monmotha Bairagi and others-vs-Government of Bangladesh and others
Disposed of
13
Md. Khalekuzzaman-vs-Mst. Mahamuda Beum
14
Most. Roksana Parvin Mili and others-vs-Khondakar Mohammad Shohidulla and another
15
Md. Zahirul Islam-vs-Md. Sohrab Uddin and others
16
Khandaker Abdus Sabur-Vs-Jamsher Ali and others
17
Sumaiya Tanvir @ Ayesha Panni and others- Versus- The State and another
18
Md. Abdul Latif Bhuiyan- Versus- The State and another
19
Md. Habibur Rahman and others-Versus-The State
20
Abul Hasan- Versus-Keramot Mollah and others
21
Shantanu Barua and others-Versus-The State and another
22
Kulsum Bibi- Versus- Abdul Kader Munshi and others
23
Jahir Ahmed-Versus- Nurul Islam and others
24
Sayeda Nurun Nahar Lucky and others-Versus- Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Brahmanbaria and others
25
Md. Quamruzzaman Talukdar-Versus-Md. Motiur Rahman and others
26
Sree Sudhir Chandra Sarker and others -Versus- Sree Prodip Chandra Sen and others
27
Md. Mahmudul Haque Bhuiyan- Versus- Jesmin Akther Beauty
28
Md. Ferdous Alom -Versus- Mosammat Akhinoor Begum
29
Md. Shafiqur Rahman and others-Versus-Ali Akbar and others
30
Md. Habibur Rahman Liton- Versus- Md. Anisur Rahman Badal
31
Ismat Ara Begum-Vs-Mahmuda Islam and others
32
Sayed Md.Nurul Islam Miazi and others-Vs- Tajol Islam and another
33
The State-Versus- Washim Akter @ Tarek Hossain @ Tarek @ Marfat Ali and others
34
A.K.M Asiful Haque Vs. Secretary, Law and Justice and Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others
The words “public trial” denote public access to the court proceedings. In other words, public trial reflects “open justice” and any trial that grants access to the court or the venue at which court proceedings would take place will be regarded as “public trial”.

Article 35(3) of the Constitution of the people’s republic of Bangladesh mandates that the criminal proceeding of a court or tribunal shall be held in public. Public means, for the use of everyone without discrimination. Anything, gathering or audience which is not private is public. Obviously, a Judge’s Chamber is not a court hall to which the public will normally have any right of access. Courtrooms are considered as public place as opposed to the Judge’s Chambers for the simple reason that the Judicial Officers, the parties and their Counsels and any interested member of the public has unrestricted ‘access’ to it. With all due respect, if the Judge granted unrestricted access to his chamber to the parties and their Counsels and any interested member of the public, the chamber would move from a ‘private’ place to a ‘public place’. Same conditions when available in a remote hearing i.e access being granted to and available to Judicial Officers, the parties and their Counsels and any interested member of the public will make the venue of such remote/virtual hearing be it zoom, skype, whatsApp etc. a public place in line with the provisions of Article 35(3) of the Constitution. It is our opinion, therefore, that the apprehension whether remote hearings are in conformity with the constitutional requirement that the proceeding be in public, the answer would be that the Constitution did not say that such proceedings must be in a physical structure called a Courtroom. Once the proceeding in a remote/Virtual hearing through video conferencing is made accessible to everyone involved and any interested member of the public, then the condition as provided by Article 35(3) would be complied with.
35
Uthpal Kumar Roy and three others Vs. Meghnad Shaha and another
The tribunal shall not take cognizance or frame charge of an offence punishable under section 11 (Ga) or 11(Ga)/30 of the Ain, 2000 against an accused without having a medical examination certificate from Government Hospital or any private Hospital, recognized by the Government for that purpose in view of the provision under section 32 of the said Ain in support of simple hurt of the victim wife.
36
Syeda Hamza- Vs- The State
37
Zahanara Begum-Vs- The State and another
38
Md. Anwar Hossain-Vs-the State
39
মোঃ নাজমুল হুদা ওরফে নাজমুর হুদা বনাম রাষ্ট্র ও অন্য
বিজ্ঞ দায়রা জজ, নড়াইল ফৌজদারী কার্যবিধির ২৬৫সি ধারার দরখাস্তটি নিষ্পত্তির সময়ে মামলার এজাহার, অভিযোগপত্র, সাক্ষীদের ফৌজদারী কার্যবিধির ধারা ১৬১ অনুসারে প্রদত্ত জবানবন্দীসমূহ, সুরতহাল ও ময়না তদন্ত প্রতিবেদন অর্থ্যাৎ মামলার নথি ও তদ্সঙ্গে দাখিলকৃত কাগজাদি আদৌ বিবেচনায় না নিয়ে শুধুমাত্র আসামী পক্ষের আত্মসমর্থনের কাগজাদি/বক্তব্য এবং পেশাগত অবস্থান বিবেচনায় নিয়ে প্রতিপক্ষ নং-২ কে মামলা হতে অব্যাহতি দেয়ার বিষয়টি আমাদের কাছে শুধু বিষ্ময়করই মনে হয়নি বরং বিজ্ঞ দায়রা জজের দায়রা মামলা পরিচালনার যোগ্যতা এবং ফৌজদারী আইন সম্পর্কে তাঁর জ্ঞান ও ধারনা সম্পর্কে যুক্তিসংগত সন্দেহের (reasonable suspicion) সৃষ্টি করেছে।
40
The State -Vs- Md. Mazed and others
41
The State-Bipul Chandra Ray
42
The State-Vs-Oyshee Rahman
1. Condemned prisoner committed double murder without any apparent motive and was suffering from mental derailment or some sort of mental disorder and also suffering from ovarian cyst and bronchial asthma; 2. Her paternal grandmother and maternal uncle had a history of psychiatric disorders according to exibit-15; 3. She was around 19[nineteen] year old at the relevant time and the occurrence took place just immediately after her attaining the age of majority; 4. She has no such significant history of prior criminal activity [criminal cases] and 5. She had willingly surrendered to the police station soon after two days of the occurrence.
43
The State-Vs- Qamrul Islam and others
44
The State Vs. Md. Foysal Bin Nayem @ Dip and Redoyanul Azad @ Rana
45
The State -Vs- Zakir Hossain and another
46
The State -Vs- Abul Kashem Kha
47
The State-Vs- Md. Ramjan Sheikh and another
48
The State-Vs-Mohammad Ali
49
The State -Vs- Md. Saiful Islam and one another
50
The State Vs. Md. Sharif and Md. Mintu Khan