24 Jun 2012: Sayedee bail order

After the Sayedee investigation officer cross examination, the tribunal then passed its order relating to the bail application for Sayedee (summary below)

Accused Mr. Delwar Hossain Syedee has not been produced before the Tribunal because of his illness. The recording of the Prosecution Witness has been taken up and remains incomplete. The matter is taken up for bail petition.

This is an application for bail on behalf of the accused. Tajul Islam appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that- under Rule-34 of the ICT Rules of Procedures the Tribunal can enlarge anyone on bail. He has urged that- before this time the bail petition has been rejected on the following grounds; as the accused is an influential person may influence the matter he would be released on bail. And the accused may intimidate Prosecution witness. He submits that- on 29-3-2011 the Tribunal has allowed the Prosecution under section – 19(1) to allow the 15 witnesses. The accused side has taken up serious allegation of fraud about the matter. And he also submits that- there is no evidence that- the accused may commit fraud. He also submits that- the bail is a right of the accused in several International Tribunals. On 13-6-2012 the accused’s Son suffered a serious heart attack and sent to the Ibrahim Cardiac Hospital and afterwards found death. On 14-6-2012 the accused was released on parole and suffered a heart attack. The medical board has been formed on 16-6-2012. On 18-6-2012 his angiogram has been done. And 4 blocks in his heart has been found. He was prescribed to be examined by two tests; which are only possible in National Heart Foundation. Thus, he was sent over there. Mr. Tajul Islam has submitted that- the accused is in need of proper facilitated hospital. He was doing his regular check up and treatments at Royal Brumton Hospital of England, so he is supposed to sent over there for his treatment. He also submits that- for proper medical care the accused also needs family care; which is not possible in the Hospital.

Haidar Ali on behalf of the Prosecution has submitted that- The proper facilities and treatment is being given to the accused, so there is no scope of bail prayer.

We have heard both the sides-

Normally in such case the bail can’t be granted. We have brought Rule- 34(3) of ICT Rules of Procedures. Normally an accused can’t be enlarged on bail, but it may be allowed on the discretion of the Tribunal. The recording of the witness is already been completed almost; so Haidar Ali has submitted that- he can’t be granted on bail at this moment. Before passing the order- the accused has been sent to the National Heart Foundation Hospital for his treatment. Mr. Haidar Ali has informed that- he has informed the proper authority to take all sort of cares.

We are satisfied that- the proper treatment is going on. Upon perusal of the report and position of the accused we are satisfied that- if the proper treatment is being given on, then bail would not be required. The defence counsel has prayed for parole for sending the accused to the Royal Brumton Hospital of England. In London Hospital the family care is not allowed.

In the last order we didn’t pass any points about the bill of the treatment. And now the cost of the treatment is to be borne by the accused petitioner side.

And we have observed that, when he was released on October for his mother’s funeral, he uttered provocative words before the public. And from the newspaper report, Daily Jonokontha on 22nd June 2012 we have got to know that, the prosecution witness no 11’s son has been beaten up by a group who were allegedly the supporters of the accused.

And the bail matter of another accused is totally different from this case, he is moving on wheel chair; so there is no scope of finding similarities between the cases.

So, the prayer should not be allowed and the prayer of the bail petition is rejected.

Tajul Islam: My Lord, neither the defence nor the Prosecution has made any coments about the last part of the order; it was not required to be mentioned without any verification and only by the mere reports of the newspapers. The incident of the witness’s son was all about marijuana and about the local people, there is no chance to mix that up with this case. And about the breaking the norms of the tribunal by the accused by provocative speech I would like to say, without any verification it is not required to say so.

Justice Nizamul Huq: We do also watch television; can you deny, he didn’t say so?

Tajul Islam: When the defence and prosecution are silent about the matter, why did you talk about this without any verification? I highly object and the observation should be expunged from the order.

Justice Nizamul Huq agreed that those parts of the order would be expunged

Tajul Islam: Much Obliged.