DISTRICT: FARIDPUR.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1331 OF 2005.
IN THE MATTER OF :
An application under Section 426 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure
praying for bail in pending appeal.
And
IN THE MATTER OF :
Siraj,
son of shamsuddin @ Shamsu @
Shama of Village: Charmurardia,
Police Station: Modhukhali,
District: Faridpur.
....... Convict-Appellant-Petitioner.
(In Jail)
-VersusThe State.
...... Respondent.

To
Mr. Justice Syed J.R. Mudassir Husain, the Chief Justice of
Bangladesh and his Companion Justices of the said Honble Court.
The humble petition of the above
named petitioner most respectfully
SHEWETH:
1.

That the prosecution casein short is that, the informant

Mosammat Zumuri Begum, lodged an FIR with the Boalmari
Police Station dated 4-10-1998 at 13.15 hours stating inter
alia that, the occurrence took place on 26-9-1998 at 21.30
hours against the accused appellant petitioner and others
alleging the offence under sections 6(3)/14 of the Nari-OShishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995.
Certified copy of the said FIR dated 4-10-1998 is
enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A.

2.

That the police without through and proper investigation

submitted a charge sheet being charge sheet No.112 dated
3-11-1998 against the convict appellant petitioner and another
under section 6(3)/14 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh
Bidhan) Ain, 1995.

Certified copy of the charge sheet dated 3-11-1998 is

enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-B.
3.

That the defence case is that, the convict appellant petitioner

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instance
case.

4.

That in the trial the prosecution examined as many as 11

witnesses but the defence examined none.

5.

That the said case was heard and disposed of by Mr. Md.
Afjal Hossain, Judge (District Judge) Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan
Daman Bishesh Adalat, Faridpur, who without considering
the facts, circumstances and the material on record and
without appreciating the evidence on record was pleased to
convict and sentence the convict appellant petitioner rigorous
imprisonment for life under section 6(3) of Nari-O-Shishu
Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995 and to pay a fine of
Tk.5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1
(one) year by his judgment and order dated 4-3-2004.

6.

That against the said judgment and order of conviction and

sentence the convict appellant petitioner preferred the present

Criminal Appeal before this Honble Court which is now

pending for disposal.
7.

That it is stated that during trial the convict appellant

petitioner was all along on bail and did not misuse of the
privilege of the bail and on 16-8-1999 during hearing of the
bail application of the convict appellant petitioner, the learned
Special Judge of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman, Faridpur
stated in his order No.17 dated 16-8-1999 GB chvq
GRvnviKvixwb IKvjZbvgv hvM Av`vjZ nvwRi
nBqv GKLvbv `iLv w`qv `iLvKvix nvRZx
Avmvgxi Rvwgbi Kvb Avcw bvB gg Rvbvq|
and given an observation that, bw_ chvjvPbv Kwiqv
Avgvi wbKU cwZfvZ nq h, wfKwUg Szgyix
eMgi cKZ eqm wbgvibi ck Av`vjZi
Av`ki AmwZZ h Kvb c DPZi Av`vjZ
wiwfkb `iLv `vqi KwiZ cvib, wK Zb
wfKwUg

GRvnviKvixi

^xKZ

alb

bv

Kiv

Avmvgx wmivR Iid wmivRyj BmjvgK `xNw`b

nvRZ AvUK ivLv mgxwPb nBebv|

Certified copy of the said bail order dated 16-8-1999 is

annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-C.
8.

That it is stated that the co-accused Hannan has granted bail

by this Honble Court by order dated 31-7-2005.
Certified copy of the said bail order dated 31-7-2005 is
enclosed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-D.

9.

That it is submitted that, the accused appellant petitioner is

innocent and has been falsely implicated inthe instance case
and as such the accused appellant petitioner may be enlarged
on bail.

10.

That it is submitted that the convict appellant petitioner is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case
out of grudge and enemity and as such the convict appellant
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

11.

That it is submitted that during trial, the victim herself was

present in the Court on 16-8-1999 and submitted an
application before the Court, where he stated that she has no
objection, if the convict appellant petitioner may enlarged on
bail and as such the convict appellant petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.

12.

That it is submitted that the judgment and order of conviction

and sentence is bad in law as well as in the facts and
circumstances of the case and as such the convict appellant
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

13.

That it is submitted that the co-accused Hannan has been

granted bail by this Honble Court and as such the convict
appellant petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

14.

That it is submitted that the charge framed by the Trial Court

is defective and the convict petitioner become prejudiced and
as such the convict appellant petitioner may be enlarged on
bail.

15.

That it is submitted that the examination of the convict

petitioner under section 342 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is defective and as such the accused appellant
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

16.

That it is submitted that the judgment and order of conviction

and sentence is not in accordance with the provisions of
section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such
the convict appellant petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

17.

That it is submitted that the learned Trial Court below acted

illegally in convicting the convict petitioner inasmuch as the
prosecution filed to prove the case beyond all reasonable
doubt and as such the accused appellant petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.

18.

That it is submitted that the court below acted illegally in

conviction the convict appellant petitioner inasmuch as the
Court below did not give the benefit of doubt to the defence
but instead of giving the benefit to the prosecution and as
such the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is
liable to be set aside and as such the convict petitioner may
be enlarged on bail.

19.

That it is submitted that the instant case is a case of no

evidence and as such the convict appellant petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.

20.

That it is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to

appreciate and consider the contradictory statements made by
the prosecution witnesses and thereby acted illegally in
ariving at a wrong decision finding the convict appellant

petitioner guilty and as such the convict appellant petitioner

may be enlarged on bail.
21.

That it is submitted that the prosecution did not examine any

independent and disinterested witnesses to prove the alleged
occurrence and as such the convict appellant petitioner may
be enlarged on bail.

22.

That it is submitted that the signs of struggle and violence of

the victim was found nil in the report of medical examination
of the victim and as such the convict appellant petitioner may
be enlarged on bail.

23.

That it is submitted that the court below ought to have

believed the evidence of prosecution convict Nos.1 and 2
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there
is no other eye witnesses and/or material disinterested
witnesses in the case and as such the convict appellant
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

24.

That it is submitted that the trial is without appointing the

state defence for and on behalf of the convict appellant
petitioner and as such the convict appellant petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.

25.

That it is submitted that the medical report does not

corroborate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses Nos.1
and 2 and as such the convict appellant petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.

26.

That it is submitted that the prosecution witness Nos.3 to 9

are the interested evidence and their evidences got no
evidentiary value and as such convict appellant petitioner may
be enlarged on bail.
Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed
that your Lordships would graciously
be pleased to enlarge the convict
petitioner on bail in Criminal Appeal
No.1331 of 2004 and/or pass such
other or further order or orders as to
your Lordships may seem fit and
proper.
And for this act of kindness, your appellant petitioner as in

duty bound shall ever pray.

10

AFFIDAVIT
I, Md. Zakir Hossain, son of late Shamsuddin Sheikh, of Village:
Charmuradia, P.S. Madhukhali, District: Faridpur, Bangladesh, aged
about 26 years,

by faith Muslim, by profession Business, by

Nationality Bangladeshi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

follows:
1.

That I am the tadbirkar of the case and well conversant with

the facts and circumstances of the case and as such I am
competent to swear this affidavit.

2.

That the statements made above are true to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

Prepared in my office:
DEPONENT
Advocate

Solemnly affirmed before me

on this the th day of August,
2005 at ...

COMMISSIONER OF AFFIDAVITS
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

The deponent is known to me

and identified by me.

Advocate

11

HIGH COURT DIVISION, DHAKA.