An under trial prisoner is also entitled to get speedy trial without being languish­ing in jail without trial for an indefinite period and it is a fundamental right of an under-trial prisoner to get speedy trial and thus the High Court Division erred in law in granting stay against the spirit of law and intention of the legislature in enacting the Act No.28 of 2002. The learned Attorney General further sub­mitted that section 5 and 6 of the Act 28 /naving been challenged in writ yrction and the said two sections A been found to be the valid law and /ie decision to that effect has been reported in 55 DLR 636, as such, High Court Division ought not to have grant­ed stay of proceedings while issuing the rule challenging the vires of certain pro­visions of the law. Abdul Kader Mirza vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Law (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 5ADC 901

Section 5 of the Ain provides that the Tribunal shall hold trial of only those cases mentioned in the Gazette Notification and the provision in Section 6 provides which cases would be transferred by the Government through Gazette Notification to the Tribunal established under the Ain. The High Court Division finds that there is, prima-facie, no hide and sick or choose and pick in making the transfer of the cases.
Abdul Kader Mirza -Vs.- The State 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 90

Section 7 specifically provides that the Tribunal shall be deemed to be Court of Sessions and the provision of the Ain shall apply in respect of the trial of the cases before the Tribunal.
Abdul Kader Mirza -Vs.- The State 3ALR(2014)(1)(AD)90

We have gone through the order passed by the Magistrate which has simply and plainly asked the investigation officer to add relevant section of the Druta Bichar Ain provided the allegations do attract any of the section of the aforesaid Ain and so doing we do not think the Magistrate has in nay way exceeded his jurisdiction having the effect of interference with the course of investigation, rather, he has left the matter to the discretion and judgment of the investigating officer. Monajjel Hossain Khan Vs. The State 13 BLT (AD) 25.

Druta Bichar Tribunal Ain, 2000
Section-13
The provision of Section 13 of the Druta Bichar Tribunal Ain, 2000, it is mandatory that both the G. R. Case and Druta Bichar Case should be tried simultaneously and therefore the High Court Division having Misread and Misconstrued the aforesaid provision of law committed illegality in directing the Druta Bichar Tribunal to dispose of G. R. Case after the disposal of the Druta Bichar Case as contended by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner — Held; we are of the view that the learned judges of the High Court Division rightly passed the impugned judgment in the interest of justice. Abdul Motaleb Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 16 BLT (AD)147.