The New Nation - Internet Edition

UNB, Dhaka

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court hears today a petition seeking direction and interpretation about its judgment on providing bail under unassailable Emergency Power Rules (EPR).

The Chamber Court passed the order following an application for public interest filed by human rights lawyer Idrisur Rahman.

Earlier, the application was moved by three lawyers-Dr Kamal Hossain, Barrister Amir-Ul Islam and Abdul Baset Majumder-to the six-member Appellate Division led by outgoing Chief Justice M Ruhul Amin. But, the court told the counsel to appeal to the Chamber Court in this regard.

On April 23, the Appellate Division backed a government plea overruling a High Court judgment forbidding its jurisdiction to dispose of bail petitions in criminal cases under the EPR sparking a serious repercussion in the country.

The apex court in its judgment identified five grounds for seeking a bail under the EPR. The grounds are mala fide, quorum non-judice, without jurisdiction, section 16(2) of the EPR (arrest on suspicion) and section 19 (yna) of EPR.

The High Court verdict came on March 29 last year following an application by a Khulna oil trader Maijuddin Shikder who sought bail in a criminal case placed for trial under the EPR for adulterated oil supply.

On March 21 last year, the government made an amendment to the rules under the Emergency Power Ordinance 2007 revoking the rights to appeal for any bail and seek redress from any higher court until a case under the EPR is resolved in the trial court.

According to the amended EPR, an accused will not even be able to file a bail petition during the investigation into or trial of a case under it.

Besides, an accused cannot seek redress from any higher court against the order given by any court or tribunal before or during the trial until the delivery of the final verdict.

After browsing the certified copy of the apex court ruling on the EPR barring bail, the petitioner moved to the Appellate Division seeking explanation, as there are scopes to appeal for bails under the EPR.

Talking to reporters, Idris said despite the apex court ruling that allowed a government appeal depriving detainees of bails under the EPR, it is apparently seen in the judgment there are indeed scopes to get bails.

Although the EPR is in place, there are five exceptional areas where a justice-seeker could appeal for bail, he said adding that is why explanation has been sought from the court to specify the grounds in which a court could grant bail.

Dr Kamal Hossain said it could be surmised that following the judgment the court showed the doors to bail-seekers, but the original judgment states that there are scopes for seeking bails under the EPR.

Barrister Amir-Ul Islam said the Appellate Division judgment on EPR could be reviewed.

If not reviewed, there is a possibility that the equilibrium of the constitution, the highest law of the land, to be impeded, he added.

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Barrister Shafique Ahmed said by accepting the review petition it was proved that the apex court ruling on the EPR violated the constitution, the existing law of the land and the fundamental and human rights of the people.

Veteran lawyer Barrister Rafique-ul Huq said the grounds specified in the judgment would allow bails to 90 percent of those detained under the EPR.

He also said the Appellate Division judgment has been changed following adverse reaction both at home and abroad.