The High Court on Monday issued a rule asking the government to explain as to why directives should not be given to form a committee for formulating a policy over handcuffing and shackling the accused.
The HC bench of Justice KM Kamrul Kader and Justice Mohammad Ali issued the rule after hearing a writ petition.
The HC also issued another rule asking the government to explain as to why directives should not be given to the authorities concerned to provide compensation to Ali Azam of Gazipur and Selim Reza of Shariatpur, who had to attend namaz-e-janazas of their relatives with handcuffs and leg irons after release from jail on parol.
Secretaries to the Home Ministry, Law Ministry, Inspector General of Police, Director General of Prison, Deputy Commissioners of Dhaka and Gazipur, Gazipur Police Superintendent , Jailer of Kashimpur central jail, Officer-in-charge of Kaliakoir Police Station and Officer-in-charge of Palong Police Station in Shariatpur have been made respondents to the rule which is returnable in four weeks.
Former Attorney General AJ Mohammad Ali and Barrister Kaisar Kamal stood for the writ petitioner while Deputy Attorney General Abdullah Al Mahmud Bashar represented the state.
Barrister Kaisar Kamal filed a writ petition on January 24 challenging the legality of using handcuffs and leg irons while taking politicians to attend namaz-e-janza or social programmes from jail on parole.
He also attached a report published in a newspaper.
On December 20, a report was published in a vernacular daily that Ali Azam, president of Boali union unit BNP in Kaliakoir upazila of Gazipur district, had to attend the namaz-e-janaza of his mother wearing handcuff and leg irons.
On January 17, Selim Reza, assistant general secretary Central unit Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal, had to attend the namaz-e-janaza of his mother upon release on parole from jail in the same way in Shariatpur.
Police arrested him from BNP’s Central office on December 7. Reza was sent to Kashimpur jail on December 10 in a case filed for sabotage activities.
Advocate Kaisar Kamal said the two incidents are motivated and contradictory to the Article 35 of the Constitution and prison Act 1894. Its need to be changed and that’s why the writ petition was filed, he said.