Staff Reporter :
The High Court (HC) on Tuesday cancelled its earlier order that granted anticipatory bail to former judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court Justice Md Zainul Abedin, who is facing a corruption allegation.
The court said Justice Md Zainul Abedin cannot get anticipatory bail as there is no specific case against him.
The HC bench of Justice Md Nazrul Islam Talukder and Justice K M Hafizul Alam passed the order after hearing the rule issued on anticipatory bail.
The court also rejected the petition filed by Justice Md Zainul Abedin seeking bail in connection with a notice issued by the Anti-Corruption Commission.
Barrister Mainul Hosein took part in the hearing on behalf of Justice Md Zainul Abedin and Advocate Kurshid Alam Khan stood for the ACC.
Barrister Hosein’s submission in favour of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was that it is the principle of anticipatory bail that it is granted in anticipation of impending arrest and the Anti-Corruption law permits a person to be arrested before any FIR has been filed merely enquiry has started so his client has cogent reason to be arrested and humiliated although the enquiry has been going for some eight years with nothing found against him.
Barrister Hosein further submitted that an individual’s right to liberty cannot be left to whims of an enquiring officer although he found no justification for initiating a case and by opposing his client’s bail this arbitrary power of arresting is to be as retained as a sword over his client. His client sought protection of law in defense of his liberty.
Keeping a person under impending fear of arrest for 8 years cannot be law, Barrister Hosein also said in his submission.
ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan in his submission said, “No specific case was filed against Justice Md Zainul Abedin. So, he cannot get anticipatory bail.”
Citing from the court’s observation, the ACC lawyer said, “The court said, there is no example of granting bail without specific case. If there is any anticipatory bail without specific case, then there will be chaos in the society.”
On July 10 last year, the same HC bench granted anticipatory bail to Justice Zainul although there was no specific allegation against him, said ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan and Deputy Attorney General A K M Amin Uddin Manik.
The ACC sent a notice on July 18 in 2010 to the former judge of the Appellate Division Justice Md Zainul Abedin seeking the statement of his wealth.
On July 25 in 2010, the judge filed a writ petition with the HC challenging the legality of the notice. But the HC rejected the writ petition.
The ACC sent another notice on October 25 in 2010. The judge submitted all the documents responding the notice on November 3 in 2010.
But after a long time, the ACC sought explanation from the judge in the month of January of 2017. A newspaper also published a report on the topic in June in 2017. Then the judge filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail to avoid the possibility of arrest and harassment.
The HC on July 10 in 2017 granted him bail till completion of the investigation of the allegation and issued a rule asking the respondents as to why Justice Md Zainul Abedin should not be granted permanent bail.
After final hearing, the HC rejected the rule issued on anticipatory bail.
The High Court (HC) on Tuesday cancelled its earlier order that granted anticipatory bail to former judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court Justice Md Zainul Abedin, who is facing a corruption allegation.
The court said Justice Md Zainul Abedin cannot get anticipatory bail as there is no specific case against him.
The HC bench of Justice Md Nazrul Islam Talukder and Justice K M Hafizul Alam passed the order after hearing the rule issued on anticipatory bail.
The court also rejected the petition filed by Justice Md Zainul Abedin seeking bail in connection with a notice issued by the Anti-Corruption Commission.
Barrister Mainul Hosein took part in the hearing on behalf of Justice Md Zainul Abedin and Advocate Kurshid Alam Khan stood for the ACC.
Barrister Hosein’s submission in favour of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was that it is the principle of anticipatory bail that it is granted in anticipation of impending arrest and the Anti-Corruption law permits a person to be arrested before any FIR has been filed merely enquiry has started so his client has cogent reason to be arrested and humiliated although the enquiry has been going for some eight years with nothing found against him.
Barrister Hosein further submitted that an individual’s right to liberty cannot be left to whims of an enquiring officer although he found no justification for initiating a case and by opposing his client’s bail this arbitrary power of arresting is to be as retained as a sword over his client. His client sought protection of law in defense of his liberty.
Keeping a person under impending fear of arrest for 8 years cannot be law, Barrister Hosein also said in his submission.
ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan in his submission said, “No specific case was filed against Justice Md Zainul Abedin. So, he cannot get anticipatory bail.”
Citing from the court’s observation, the ACC lawyer said, “The court said, there is no example of granting bail without specific case. If there is any anticipatory bail without specific case, then there will be chaos in the society.”
On July 10 last year, the same HC bench granted anticipatory bail to Justice Zainul although there was no specific allegation against him, said ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan and Deputy Attorney General A K M Amin Uddin Manik.
The ACC sent a notice on July 18 in 2010 to the former judge of the Appellate Division Justice Md Zainul Abedin seeking the statement of his wealth.
On July 25 in 2010, the judge filed a writ petition with the HC challenging the legality of the notice. But the HC rejected the writ petition.
The ACC sent another notice on October 25 in 2010. The judge submitted all the documents responding the notice on November 3 in 2010.
But after a long time, the ACC sought explanation from the judge in the month of January of 2017. A newspaper also published a report on the topic in June in 2017. Then the judge filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail to avoid the possibility of arrest and harassment.
The HC on July 10 in 2017 granted him bail till completion of the investigation of the allegation and issued a rule asking the respondents as to why Justice Md Zainul Abedin should not be granted permanent bail.
After final hearing, the HC rejected the rule issued on anticipatory bail.
