The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday directed the authorities concerned to accept the case, if the Bangladesh Bank official, Golam Rabbi, files a case against suspended Sub-inspector of Mohammadpur Police Station, Masud Shikder, who allegedly tortured him on January 9. The apex court said that Rabbi is a qualified government officer. He has the right to file a case with police or court over the incident. The authorities concerned are directed to accept his case against the accused, if he wants to do so, said a four-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice (CJ) Surendra Kumar Sinha after concluding hearing on a petition filed by the government, seeking stay on filing of case over the incident. The three other members of the bench are Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana, Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Hasan Foez Siddique.
The apex court also observed that the incident of police torturing a citizen was totally undesired. Rabbi has the rights to move the court or the police station to file a case seeking remedy over the incident, the apex court added.
However, the apex court said that it would not encourage anyone to file the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) over the matter as the victim has full rights to file the case over the matter.
The apex court came up with the observation after receiving a primary police investigation report submitted by Attorney General (AG) Mahbubey Alam, which stated that Rabbi obstructed them from discharging their duties and had a scuffle with them while being searched earlier this month.
During the hearing, Alam told the court that the central bank official Rabbi obstructed police while discharging their duty and was locked in a scuffle with the lawmen while being searched. Rabbi’s claim regarding the incident of torturing was not true. If Rabbi’s statement would be considered as FIR, then it (case) would dampen the morale of the police force, he added.
He also said that the HC had directed police to accept Rabbi’s written statement as FIR following a petition filed by three citizens of the country.
“If the HC issues such order against police, everyone will move with a petition against police,” the chief law officer of the state said.
At one stage of hearing, Chief Justice Sinha wanted to know from the Attorney General where was the obstacle to receive FIR against a police official in a democratic country.
“Police tarnished the image and dignity of Rabbi when police wanted to take action against him on that night. If he files case against a police official, it would be disposed of in accordance with the law. Why you (Alam) are blocking the way of filing FIR against police official,” CJ asked AG.
In response to another submission, CJ replied to the Attorney General saying that the filing of FIR and the departmental punishment were separate issues. FIR and the departmental punishment are not similar, the CJ added.
After the apex court order, AG told reporters that the apex court said that filing of a writ petition was not right in the name of the public interest litigation. The victim is a qualified person. He is able to file case against accused, if needed. Hence, the petition was not filed properly, he noted. On January 21, SC stayed a High Court order to accept Rabbi’s complaint as FIR. Chamber Judge Hazan Foyez Siddique issued the stay order till January 25, sending it to the Appellate Division for final hearing.
On Wednesday, Rabbi’s lawyer, Mahbub Uddin Khokon, said now there is no bar on accepting his client’s complaint as FIR. Khokon said the Supreme Court’s three-day stay order over the High Court order expired on January 25, and the state Counsel did not file any petition, seeking extension of time.