Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Rules 3-8, 14 & 15

From the discussions as above we cannot but hold that Rule 11 of the Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 as a whole is not only applicable in respect of offences mentioned in Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules but also in respect of the offences under the laws mentioned in Rule 14 and 15 of the Rules in as much as, the Rules are to be read and construed as a whole and not in isolation. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57. ....View Full Judgment

Rule 11

The language of Rule 11(3) admits of no ambiguity and therefore, there is hardly any scope for interpretation. The intention of the law makers is manifested in the express words used in sub-rule 3 leaving no scope to doubt that such power of granting bail by the appellate Court has been taken away by express provisions. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57. ....View Full Judgment

Rule 11(1)

The expression “এই বিধিমালার অধীন” refers to the Emergency Powers Rules as a whole. It cannot mean and refer to Rule 10 only; otherwise the expression would have been “উক্ত বিধির অধীন” i.e. under the aforesaid Rule. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57. ....View Full Judgment

Rule 11(2)

The High Court Division has correctly followed the observations made by this Division in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2008 in granting bail to the respondent No.1. The appeal could not be disposed of within ninety days and the respondent has already served out a substantial portion of sentence. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Sigma Huda 62 DLR (AD) 227. ....View Full Judgment

Rule 11(3)

The language of Rule 11(3) admits of no ambiguity and therefore, there is hardly any scope for interpretation. The intention of the law makers is manifested in the express words used in sub-rule 3 leaving no scope to doubt that such power of granting bail by the appellate Court has been taken away by express provisions. ACC vs Barrister Nazmui Huda 60 DLR(AD)57. ....View Full Judgment

Rule 11(3)

Bail in a pending appeal—The matter of granting bail by the High Court Division, during the period of emergency, in a pending appeal filed by the convict who has been convicted and sentenced under the provision of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in case of short sentence not exceeding 3 years, when the appeal could not be disposed of within 90 working days for no fault of the appellant andlor in the case of serious illness endangering life to be certified by duly constituted Medical Board, may consider the matter of granting bail in an appropriate case in an appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs Sabera Aman 62 DLR (AD) 246. ....View Full Judgment

Rule 19(Gha)

Whether Rule 19(Gha) Prohibits enlargement on bail
Writ petitioners have been charged under offences including that of Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 and Rule l9(Gha) prohibits enlargement or bail —The grounds upon which the bail was granted do not inspire our confidence in view of the above provision of section 19(Gha) of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007. Accordingly we are not inc. to emerge the accused to enlarge the accused on bail. Anti Corruption Commission Vs. Syed Tanveer Ahmed & Anr 16 BLT (AD)220 ....View Full Judgment

Rule 19 ঞ

The allegation that the Rules are beyond the authority of the EPO has no substance and approval with retrospective effect is permitted to be given in respect of cases initiated between 12.01.2007 to 23.03.2007 the instant case was filed on 13.06.2007 and in respect of offences mentioned in Rules 14 and 15, the Rule 19 ঞ of the EPR provided as regard the cases which are of public importance and since the present case was lodged on 13.06.2007 it can be tried under EPR. Govt. of Bangladesh & Anr Vs. Sheikh Hasina & Anr. 16 BLT (AD)233. ....View Full Judgment

Rule 19 Cha

Section 498 provides for jurisdiction of the High Court Division and the Sessions Judge in granting bail under section 498 and application under section 498 cannot be entertained by any other Court, other than the High Court Division and the Sessions Judge and therefore, when the law makers mentioned section 498 they knew they were ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court Division and the Sessions Judge in entertaining applications under section 498 and therefore, the ouster has been deliberately done with manifest intention and by express words. Non-mention of the names of the Courts is irrelevant for the purpose. State vs Moyezuddin Sikder 60 DLR (AD) 82. ....View Full Judgment

Rule 19Ka

Time limit under the provisions are held directory and not mandatory.
As there is no consequence provided, in the event of the failure to conclude trial within the time specified the apex court held the provisions of 339C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, section 6A of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 and rule l9Ka of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 as directory and not mandatory. However the apex court further advised to take disciplinary action against the judge concerned for his willful negligence in not complying with the provisions of the law in appropriate cases. A.H.M. Must afa Kamal @ Lotus Kamal Vs. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 45. ....View Full Judgment

Rule 19(gha)

Ousts the jurisdiction of all court including the Supreme Court to grant bail. When not specifically challenged the High Court Division cannot embark upon deciding the constitutionality of the Rule 19(gha) of the Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 while deciding the matter of granting bail. The Appellate Division held the jurisdiction of the courts including the Supreme Court has been ousted by Rule 19(gha) and as such set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court Division. The State Vs. Moyezuddin Sikder and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 208. ....View Full Judgment