----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the response from the government to the Habeas Corpus writ lodged by the the wife of Salah Uddin Ahmed, who was allegedly taken by law enforcement authorities from a house in Uttara on 10 March 2015. Annexes 2 and 2a can be found here. Annex 3 to 8 can be found here
------------
1. That I am serving as Additional Superintendent of Police, Bangladesh Police, Police Headquarters, Dhaka and authorities by the Opposite Party No 2, and tadbirkarak on behalf of opposition party 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 and I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That this opposite parties have gone through the petition upon which the instant rule has been issued and understood the contents thereof and I have been instructed to controvert the statement of the petition which are necessary for dispel of the Rule and the statement of the petition which are not specifically admitted hereinafter shall deemed to have been denied by this deponent.
3. That the statement made in paragraph No1 of the petition to the effect that the petitioner's husband has been picked up by the law enforcing agencies on 10.03.2015 at about 10.15pm are false and those are vehemently denied by this deponent.
4. That the statement in paragraph No 2 of the petition to the effect that the petitioner's husband is not involved with any subversive activities and he is not a terrorist is not correct and this deponent denied those statements.
5. That the statement made in paragraph No.3 of the petition to the effect that the petitioner's husband has been illegally picked up by the law enforcing agency are false and those are vehemently denied by this deponent.
6. That the statement made in paragraph No.4 of th epetitio not the effect that the petitioner intended to lodge a GD on 11.030.2015 are false and hence denied by this deponent.
7. That the statement made in paragraph No.5 of the petition to the effect that the petitioner's husband is picked up by the law enforcing agency on 11.03.2015 are false and hence vehemently denied by this deponent.
8. that the submission made in paragraphs No 6 of the petition for a direction upon the opposite parties to produce the husband or the petitioner before the court within 24 hours is not tenable as because the opposite parties have not taken the husband of the petitioner and her husband is not under custody of the opposite parties.
9. That the submission made in paragraph No 7, 8, 9 and 10 are not tenable and the allegation made in those paragraphs are denied by this deponent.
10. That it is stated that before filling the above mentioned Criminal Miscenllaneous Case, the petitioner went to Uttara Police Station and verbally made an allegation that on 10.03.2015 at 9-10 pm, some persons, introducing themselves as personnel of law enforcing agencies, picked up her husband and since then her husband has been out of trace. The petitioner did not make any written compliant or made any General Diary to that effect. On the basis of said oral information the officer in charge, Uttara Police Station made a Genearl Diary (GD) being GD No 634 dated 11.03.2015 and immediately, visited the place of occurrence and also conducted primary inquiry. Thereinafter, he made another GD Entry being GD No. 687 dated 12.0302015
Annexure 2 and 2(a)
11. That it is stated that before issuance of the Rule on the basis of the aforesaid General Dairy an office of the Opposite Party No.7 issued a memo being NoXXX, dated 12.0302015 directing upon all its division under them for taking steps to find out Salauddin Ahmed
Annexure 3
12. That it is stated that after issuance of th eRule a letter under Memo No XXXX dated 13.3.2015was issued from the office of the opposite party No 2 directing the Additional Inspetor General, Special Branch, Additiona Inspector General, CID, Director General of Rapid Action Battalion and Police Commissioner, Dhak, Metropolitan Police to inform the office of the Inspecgtor General as to whether husband of the petitioner, Salauddin Ahmed has been taken into custody by them.
Annexure 4
13. that in response to the said letter dated 13.0302015 office of the Opposite Party No 7 issued a letter under Memo No XXX dated 14.03.2015 stating that they are taking step to find out Salauddin Ahmed
Annexure 5
14. That in response to the aforesaid letter dated 13.0302015 the Director (Operation) of Opposite Party No. 3 issued a letter under memo No XXXX dated 14.03.2015 stating that husband of the petitioner has not been taken under their custody.
Annexure 6
15. That in response to the aforesaid letter dated 13.03.2015 issued by the opposite Party No.2 , the office of the Opposite PArty No. 4 issued a letter under memo No XXXX dated 14.03.2015 stating that they have not arrested husband of the petitioner.
Annexure 7
16. That in response to the aforesaid letter dated 13.03.2015 issued by the Opposite Party No 2 the office of the Opposite Party No. 5 Criminal Investigation Depatement (CID) issued a letter dated 14.03.2015 stating that husband of the petitioner has not been taken under their custody
Annexure 8
17. That is it submitted that since the husband of the petitioner was not arrested by the law enforcing agencies of Bangladesh and since they have no information about present position of her husband the law enforcing agency cannot not be directed to produce the husband of the petitioner and considering this aspect of the case, the rule may kindly be discharged
18. That it is submitted that the law enforcing agencies tried level best to locate and trace out the husband of the petition but as yet they could not find her husband
19. That considering aforesaid facts and circumstances the instant Rule is liable to be discharged.
No comments:
Post a Comment