Arrested on suspicion, relatives not being informed

Mohammad Helal is a third-year student of Titumir College in Dhaka. He lives in the capital’s Kamrangichar area. Forces from Lagbagh police station detained him and took him to the police station after he came to Lalbagh area on the morning of 28 October. He was subsequently shown arrested under Section 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on allegations of being a vagabond involved in crime, and was produced before Dhaka’s chief metropolitan magistrate (CMM) court. The court then sent him to jail.

After staying in prison for nine days, the country granted Mohammad Helal a bail on 6 November. He then walked out the jail and attended exam the next day.

His lawyer Fazlul Haque Sheikh told Prothom Alo the boy has a specific identify and he had been repeatedly telling the police on that day that he studies at Titumir College. Yet, police arrested him as a 'vagabond' without a warrant. That is nothing but abuse of power, he said.

Lalbagh police told the court in a written statement that no negative information was found against Mohammad Helal.

Then why an innocent student was arrested as a vagabond? In response to this question, acting officer-in-charge of Lalbagh police station, Khandaker Helal Uddin said to Prothom Alo that Helal was arrested based on suspicion. Later, as the charges were not proven an appeal has been made to relive him of the case.

Not just Helal, at least 300 persons were arrested in the capital between last 28 July and 7 November. Police allege that they are vagabonds, habitual criminals and involved in the conspiracy of cognisable crimes.

Prothom Alo has talked to the lawyers of at least 50 arrested persons. They said that police has arrested their clients based on suspicion without warrants, terming them as vagabonds, despite them having specific professions. In fact, their family members were not also notified after the arrests were made.

According to the court and information sent by Prothom Alo correspondents, some 9,564 BNP leaders and activists have been arrested between 28 October and 24 November. Of them, 3,140 are in Dhaka.

At least 15 lawyers, who are conducting cases of BNP leaders and activists, claimed the High Court in 2003 gave 15 instructions to prevent misuse of arrest and remand. Except residences and workplaces, relatives have to be informed after a person is arrested from any other place and brought to the police station. The police, however, are not complying with this instruction.

Speaking to Prothom Alo, Ain o Salish Kendra chairperson ZI Khan Panna said the High Court gave 15 instructions in 2003 to prevent misuse of arrest and remand. The Appellate Division upheld the instructions. But the reality is, persons concerned are not following the instructions.

For example, he said there is an obligation that someone has to be sent to the court within 24 hours of the arrest. Relatives of arrested persons alleged many of the arrested persons are not brought to the court within 24 hours after the arrest.

Moreover, a medical test has to be carried out by the government physicians before taking on remand for interrogation and the physicians have to submit reports to the court. These instructions are not followed.

However, Dhaka Metropolitan Police (media and public relations department) deputy commissioner Md Faruk Hossain denied the matter. He told Prothom Alo that police follow all instructions that the High Court has issued regarding sections 54 and 167 of the CrPC in 2003.

The police have only arrested people on allegations of involvement in cognizable offences and specific charges, and then their relatives were informed after the arrest.

Former advisor to the caretaker government Sultana Kamal told Prothom Alo a person who is arrested shall be informed of the grounds for such arrest as per article 33 of the constitution. It goes against the fundamental human rights of the constitution to detain someone from the streets without a warrant and show them arrested as a vagabond. It is also contempt of court. Action should be taken against those who are not abiding by the High Court’s instruction on arrest and remand, she added.

In 1998, police arrested Shamim Reza Rubel, a student of the private Independent University, from the capital's Siddeshwari under Section 54. He later died at the Detective Branch office on Minto Road on 23 July that year. Later, a judicial probe committee led by Justice Habibur Rahman was formed to investigate the incident, and the committee placed several recommendations to amend sections 54 and 167 of the CrPC.

As the recommendations went unimplemented, Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and others filed a writ petition at the High Court, and the top court issued rule and instructions in several phases after closing the hearing on the matter on 7 April 2003. In that rule, the High Court ordered the authorities to follow 15 instructions, as well as amend Section 54 on arrest and interrogation in custody within six months. The state appealed to the Appellate Division against the High Court rule, and the Appellate Division upheld the High Court order on 24 May 2016. The state appealed for a review, which is now pending at the top court. BLAST legal advisor and former district judge SM Rezaul Karim told Prothom Alo since the Appellate Division upheld the High Court verdict and instructions; everyone is obliged to follow it.

BNP's Dhaka North City Corporation ward 43 councillor Ali Akbar was arrested in a case over torching buses. His lawyer Salam Khan told Dhaka's CMM court in a written statement that a group of people claimed to be members of the Detective Branch (DB) arrested Ali Akbar from Star Kabab Hotel on 5 November and four days later, he was shown arrested in a case over torching buses. Salma Akter, the wife of Ali Akbar, told Prothom Alo, “We had gone to police stations, DB office for four days since people claimed to be DB members pick up my husband, but none of the police admitted arresting my husband. Police even filed no general diary (GD).”

However, Uttara-East police station told the court in a written statement that Ali Akbar was arrested from Uttara’s Kasaibari area on 7 November. His son Yajim Hossain told Prthom Alo, “We found no trace of my father for four days after the DB picked up him from Banani’s Star Kabab Hotel, and we learned about it from CCTV footage.”

Former inspector general of police (IGP) Mohammad Nurul Huda told Prothom Alo all members of the police are obliged to abide by the High Court's instruction on arrest and remand, and if these instructions are not followed for any person, the victim may lodge complaint to the court.

Yusuf Ali is a senior lecturer at Khater Ali Degree College, Kushtia. He was arrested from the Lalbagh area on 28 October. His lawyer told the court in a written statement that police arrested college teacher Yusuf on the streets when he came to Dhaka from Kushtia to visit his sister’s house.

Police also arrested certain Mostakim and Nahid Bhuiyan from the Kotwali area on 27 October and took them to court later. Their lawyer Jahangir Alam Chowdhury told the court that Mostakim was a businessman and Nahid is a jobholder and they have been arrested for harassment. On 2 November, the case investigating officer assistant sub-inspector (ASI) Fayeyat Uddin of Kotwali police station filed the probe report. It says the name and address of Mostakin are correct and he should be released. Later Mostakim was released from jail on bail.

According to sources of police and courts, 447 people were produced to court on the day of BNP’s rally in Naya Paltan on 28 July, and 96 of them were arrested under section 55, and they faced charges of becoming vagabonds, committing habitual crimes or not giving a satisfactory explanation for gathering in a place. Police brought 743 people to court on the day of the BNP's rally in Naya Paltan on 28 October, and 209 of them were arrested under Section 55.

Police may arrest anyone on suspicion without a warrant as per Section 54 of the CrPC. According to Section 55, police may also arrest any vagabonds or persons committing habitual crimes without a warrant, while Section 151 states that a police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without a warrant, a person so designing.

The High Court's directives about arrest and remand includes police have to show identity card ahead of arresting someone; reasons of arrest have to be written quickly after bringing to the police station; if the arrested person bears marks of attack, he or she has to be taken to the physician; police will disclose the reason of arrest within three hours of bringing to the police station; except residences and workplaces, relatives have to be informed within one hour after an arrest of a person; person arrested has to be sent to the court within 24 hours of the arrest; the court has to be informed in the form of case diary about the reason of arrest; the court will release the arrested person immediately if the reasons of arrest are not satisfactory; taking permission from the court, the accused will have to be interrogated in the room surrounded by glass wall; after the interrogation, the accused will have to be handed over to the physician; and the court will give directives to take action against the police if the proof of torture is found in the medical report.

The BLAST published a report on the High Court instructions in December 2015. It found all of the High Court’s 15 instructions on arrests and remands are not being followed as many persons were not told about the reason for arrest during the detention. Relatives are often not informed of the arrest either. As per the High Court instructions, if a person is placed on remand for the sake of investigation, they must be grilled in a special room set up with a glass wall and iron road, but there is no practice of using such an interrogation room. Besides, no medical certificate was filed to court before and after putting a person on remand.

The BLAST report said the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act 2013 was enacted after the High Court issued the instruction, and in case of remand, the lower court is ordering police to interrogate the people by following the top court’s instructions.

Supreme Court lawyer ZI Khan Panna told Prothom Alo the High Court instructions on arrest and remands have not been followed for year after year. People were intimidated at remand to make 'confessions', and many people have been forced to 'confess' in the face of torture at remand.

Article 35 of the constitution states no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.

Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) chairperson and human rights activist Sultana Kamal said it is necessary to take legal action against those who are not following the High Court instructions on arrest and remand. Articles 27, 31, 32, 33 and 35 of the constitution ensure the fundamental rights of equal legal and judicial protection to every citizen, and those who are involved in anti-constitutional activities must be brought to book, she added.