21 August grenade attack: HC to deliver verdict today
The High Court is likely to deliver verdict in the cases filed over the 21 August grenade attack on Dhaka's Bangabandhu Avenue today, Sunday.
While visiting the Supreme Court's website on Saturday, it was found that the cases (death reference, appeal, and jail appeal) are listed as items number 54 and 55 in the court's agenda for Sunday.
The bench, consisting of Justice AKM Asaduzzaman and Justice Syed Enayet Hossain, will deliver the verdict.
Earlier, the same bench of the High Court completed the hearing on the death reference and appeal of the accused on 21 November. On that day, the court kept the two cases awaiting judgment (CAV). In continuation of that, the two cases were listed in the agenda for verdict on Sunday.
Senior lawyer SM Shahjahan stood for hearing in favour of several convicts including Lutfozzaman Babar and Abdus Salam Pintu.
Speaking to Prothom Alo Today, he said the two cases are scheduled for a verdict tomorrow, Sunday. The cases are listed as numbers 54 and 55 in the court's agenda.
The grenade attack on Dhaka's Bangabandhu Avenue took place on 21 August 2004.
In the case filed (for murder and explosives), a verdict was delivered by Dhaka’s Speedy Trial Tribunal-1 on 10 October 2018.
The verdict sentenced 19 individuals, including former state minister for home affairs Lutfozzaman Babar and former deputy education minister Abdus Salam Pintu, to death. Additionally, 19 others, including BNP’s acting chairman Tarique Rahman, were sentenced to life imprisonment, and 11 others received various terms of imprisonment and fines.
Following the verdict, the case files, along with the judgment, were transferred to the High Court in 2018, where it was registered as a death reference case.
Lawyers have said that in any criminal case, when a convict is sentenced to death by a trial court, the sentence must be approved by the High Court to be enforced. This is known as a death reference case. In addition, the convicts have the opportunity to file jail appeals, regular appeals, and other applications.
Generally, hearings for the death reference and these appeals are held together. The hearing for the 21st August grenade attack case, including the death reference and appeals, started in the High Court on 31 October.
Representing the state in court were deputy attorney general Md Jasim Sarker, Russell Ahmed, and assistant attorney general Laboni Akter.
Senior lawyer SM Shahjahan represented several convicts, including Lutfozzaman Babar and Abdus Salam Pintu, while lawyer Mohammad Shishir Monir represented three other convicts.
Following the grenade attack on 21 August 2004, two cases—one for murder and another for explosives—were filed at the Motijheel police station.
It was alleged that the then BNP-Jamaat coalition government made various efforts to divert the investigation into the incident. In 2007, the caretaker government began a re-investigation into the two cases (murder and explosives).
In 2008, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) charged 22 people, stating that the attack was carried out by militants to kill Sheikh Hasina and make the Awami League leaderless.
Later, under the Awami League government, further investigation was conducted, and an additional charge sheet was filed, naming 30 individuals, including Tarique Rahman.
Regarding the hearing, senior lawyer SM Shahjahan stated that the second charge sheet in this case, which names Tarique Rahman and others, is legally invalid because it was not initially filed in the Magistrate’s Court but directly in the Sessions Court. Therefore, this charge sheet cannot be accepted under the Criminal Procedure Code.
He pointed out that in various South Asian Supreme Court and High Court precedents, if it is found that no evidence was proven against any accused in the case and the investigation was not conducted properly, all accused who did not file an appeal could benefit from the acquittal. Tarique Rahman and Kaikobad, among others, could not appeal, so they might be acquitted as well.
During the hearing, Mohammad Shishir Monir, representing three convicts, argued that the additional investigation based on Mufti Hannan’s second confession lacked legal ground. He claimed that the convicts were politically sentenced without specific evidence and that their confessions were obtained through torture. In light of these factors, he requested the acquittal of the accused.