Arrests by lawmen in plainclothes alarming

Observes Appellate Division

The Appellate Division yesterday observed that law enforcers must wear uniforms during the arrest of people as arrests by law enforcers in plainclothes have become alarming in the country.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court came up with the obsdervation during the hearing of an appeal filed by the government against the 15 points High Court directives over the arrest of common people without arrest warrant and taking them on remand by the law enforcers using section 54 and section 167 of the Criminal Procedure of Code (CrPC).
After concluding hearing on the appeal yesterday (Tuesday), a four-member bench of the Appellate Division, headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, fixed May 24 for delivering its order on the matter.
At one stage of the hearing, the Chief Justice (CJ), pointing a finger at attorney general Mahbubey Alam, said the government is yet to implement the High Court directive on arresting people and placing them on remand despite the lapse of 13 years.  
The CJ said the CrPC is a colonial law. Malaysia had amended this law in 1970 and India also brought an amendment later. "But we are yet to bring any amendment to this law," he noted.
Attorney general (AG) Mahbubey Alam told the court that the HC directive on Sections 54 and 167 was not proper in the light of social reality. If anyone dies in police custody during remand, there is a law in the country to take action against the police officer concerned, he added.
The CJ said the backlog of cases was increasing.
"The National Human Rights Commission chairman has informed me that the son of a freedom fighter, who was a bodyguard of Bangabandhu, was picked up by plainclothes men who claimed they were law enforcers. But the family members of the victim are yet to get any information about the matter," the CJ added.
The CJ also said that after arresting people law enforcers did not bring them before the media, which is not acceptable at all.
In a landmark verdict on April 7, 2003, a High Court bench of Justice Md Hamidul Haque and Justice Salma Masud Chowdhury had issued a 15-point directive, observing that Sections 54 and 167 of the CrPC are not fully consistent with constitutionally guaranteed freedom and safeguards.
The HC laid down a comprehensive set of recommendations regarding necessary amendments to both sections of the CrPC, along with the Police Act, Penal Code and the Evidence Act, and directed that these should be acted upon within six months. It also laid down a set of 15 guidelines regarding exercising of powers of arrest and remand.

The verdict contained directives to the police, jailors and sessions judges to ensure that no violation of human rights occurred to anyone arrested on suspicion.
The court prohibited arrest of anyone by the police using Section 54 for the purpose of detention.
The directive requires police officers to disclose their identity by showing their identity cards on demand from anyone to be arrested or those present at the time of arrest. In the verdict, the court directed the police to furnish reasons of arrest within three hours of bringing the arrested person to the police station.
It directed the police to inform relatives over phone or by sending messengers within one hour of bringing to the police station anyone arrested from outside his/her home or place of work.
The HC asked the police not to quiz a detainee at secret locations and in the absence of his/her lawyer, even restricting the lawmen not to abuse Section 54 of the CrPC to arrest anyone on suspicion.
The HC issued the directives in a verdict it delivered following  a public interest writ petition jointly filed the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and other rights organisations for stopping abuse of the black sections.
The writ petition was filed after university student Shamim Reza Rubel’s death in police custody following his arrest under Section 54 in July 1998. Later, the government filed an appeal with the apex court against the High Court directives. But the Supreme Court did not stay the HC order.
In 2004, the apex court asked the government to file a leave-to-appeal against the HC order. But the hearing on the appeal did not take place in 2008 and 2010, though the matter came up in the apex court’s cause list for hearing.
Finally, the apex court, with the argument of Dr Kamal Hossain, started the hearing on the appeal on March 22.
Dr Kamal Hossain told the court that the government did not take steps to implement the HC orders despite the lapse of 13 years since it verdict.  These directives were safeguards for the common people, as law enforcers were asked not to make arrests without warrant. Had the government implemented the HC directives, common people would not have been killed in custody, he added.

 

Arrests by lawmen in plainclothes alarming

Observes Appellate Division

The Appellate Division yesterday observed that law enforcers must wear uniforms during the arrest of people as arrests by law enforcers in plainclothes have become alarming in the country. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court came up with the obsdervation during the hearing of an appeal filed by the government against the 15 points High Court directives over the arrest of common people without arrest warrant and taking them on remand by the law enforcers using section 54 and section 167 of the Criminal Procedure of Code (CrPC). After concluding hearing on the appeal yesterday (Tuesday), a four-member bench of the Appellate Division, headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, fixed May 24 for delivering its order on the matter. At one stage of the hearing, the Chief Justice (CJ), pointing a finger at attorney general Mahbubey Alam, said the government is yet to implement the High Court directive on arresting people and placing them on remand despite the lapse of 13 years. The CJ said the CrPC is a colonial law. Malaysia had amended this law in 1970 and India also brought an amendment later. But we are yet to bring any amendment to this law, he noted. Attorney general (AG) Mahbubey Alam told the court that the HC directive on Sections 54 and 167 was not proper in the light of social reality. If anyone dies in police custody during remand, there is a law in the country to take action against the police officer concerned, he added. The CJ said the backlog of cases was increasing. The National Human Rights Commission chairman has informed me that the son of a freedom fighter, who was a bodyguard of Bangabandhu, was picked up by plainclothes men who claimed they were law enforcers. But the family members of the victim are yet to get any information about the matter, the CJ added. The CJ also said that after arresting people law enforcers did not bring them before the media, which is not acceptable at all. In a landmark verdict on April 7, 2003, a High Court bench of Justice Md Hamidul Haque and Justice Salma Masud Chowdhury had issued a 15-point directive, observing that Sections 54 and 167 of the CrPC are not fully consistent with constitutionally guaranteed freedom and safeguards. The HC laid down a comprehensive set of recommendations regarding necessary amendments to both sections of the CrPC, along with the Police Act, Penal Code and the Evidence Act, and directed that these should be acted upon within six months. It also laid down a set of 15 guidelines regarding exercising of powers of arrest and remand. The verdict contained directives to the police, jailors and sessions judges to ensure that no violation of human rights occurred to anyone arrested on suspicion. The court prohibited arrest of anyone by the police using Section 54 for the purpose of detention. The directive requires police officers to disclose their identity by showing their identity cards on demand from anyone to be arrested or those present at the time of arrest. In the verdict, the court directed the police to furnish reasons of arrest within three hours of bringing the arrested person to the police station. It directed the police to inform relatives over phone or by sending messengers within one hour of bringing to the police station anyone arrested from outside his/her home or place of work. The HC asked the police not to quiz a detainee at secret locations and in the absence of his/her lawyer, even restricting the lawmen not to abuse Section 54 of the CrPC to arrest anyone on suspicion. The HC issued the directives in a verdict it delivered following a public interest writ petition jointly filed the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and other rights organisations for stopping abuse of the black sections. The writ petition was filed after university student Shamim Reza Rubels death in police custody following his arrest under Section 54 in July 1998. Later, the government filed an appeal with the apex court against the High Court directives. But the Supreme Court did not stay the HC order. In 2004, the apex court asked the government to file a leave-to-appeal against the HC order. But the hearing on the appeal did not take place in 2008 and 2010, though the matter came up in the apex courts cause list for hearing. Finally, the apex court, with the argument of Dr Kamal Hossain, started the hearing on the appeal on March 22. Dr Kamal Hossain told the court that the government did not take steps to implement the HC orders despite the lapse of 13 years since it verdict. These directives were safeguards for the common people, as law enforcers were asked not to make arrests without warrant. Had the government implemented the HC directives, common people would not have been killed in custody, he added.