High Court Division
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J.
Ashish Ranjan Das J
Hasina Akhtar ………..Informant-Appellant
Judgment January 26th, 2014.
Md Raihan & another ………..Respondents*
Cancellation of Bail
There are five cases where a person granted bail may have the bail cancelled and recommitted to jail
* Where the person on bail during the period of bail commits the very same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted.
* If he hampers the investigation.
* If he tempers with the evidence.
* If he runs away to a foreign country or goes underground or beyond the control of his sureties and
· If he commits acts of violence or revenge…(11)
No one Appears -For the Informant-Appellant.
No one Appears -For the Accused-Respondent No.1.
Sakila Rowshan, DAG with Shrmina Haque, AAG and Md Sarwardhi, AAG-For the State Respondent No.2
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J: By this appeal the Informant-Appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 7-4-1997 passed by the learned Judge of Special Tribunal No.2, Chittagong (briefly as Tribunal), in Special Tribunal Case No. 11 of 1995, rejecting an application for cancellation of bail filed by the appellant.
2. Facts in brief are that, on 8-3-1993 appellant as informant lodged a First information Report with the Pahartali Police Station against the accused alleging that on 4-3-1993 all the accused in joint collaboration with each other abducted her minor daughter named Suraiya Nasrin Runa aged about 14 years. Subsequently, the victim was locomoted from one place to another and the accused No. 1 Raihan consecutively committed rape upon her. The case was recorded as Pahartali Police Station Case No. 03(3)1993 corresponding to GR No. 373 of 1993 under sections 4 and 9 of the cruelty to women’s (detterent punishment) ordinance, 1983 (briefly as Ordinance).
3. During investigation victim was recovered by the police and subsequently she was examined by the doctor.
4. Police after investigation submitted Charge-Sheet accusing accused Raihan and others.
5. Eventually, the case was taken up for trial by the Tribunal. Meanwhile, some witnesses were examined. Thereafter, accused Raihan was granted bail.
6. Subsequently, the mother of the victim herein appellant filed an application for cancellation of bail of the accused Raihan stating that after being enlarged on bail he is threatening the victim and other witnesses not to depose against them before the court, which was rejected by the tribunal by the impugned order.
7. Feeling aggrieved the informant as appellant filed the instant appeal.
8. No one appears on behalf of the appellant to support the appeal. In view of the facts this is an old appeal of 1997, we are inclined to take it up to disposal on merit considering the materials on record.
9. The learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the State Respondent No. 2 opposes the appeal and submits that after considering the entire materials on record the learned Judge of the Court below rightly passed the impugned order which calls for no interference by this Court.
10. In order to appreciate her submissions we have gone through the record and given our anxious consideration to her submissions.
11. On going to the materials on record it transpires that, earlier accused Raman was enlarged on bail by the Tribunal, we should hear in mind that there are five cases where person granted bail may have the bail cancelled and recommitted to jail :-
i) Where the person on bail during the period of bail commits the very same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted.
ii) If he hampers the investigation.
iii) If he tempers with the evidence.
iv) If he runs away to a foreign country or goes underground or beyond the control of his sureties and
v) If he commits acts of violence or revenge.
12. It is pertinent to point out that in the appellation for cancellation of bail any of such ingredient is absent. Therefore, the court below rightly rejected the prayer for cancellation of bail of the accused. We also hold the same view. Thus the appeal having no merit fails.
13. In view of foregoing narrative the appeal is dismissed.
Office is directed to communicate the order at once.
