The High Court yesterday withdrew its order for a one year bail to former Awami League leader Ruhul Amin who allegedly instructed the rape of a woman at Subarnachar upazila in Noakhali on December 30.
The bench of Justice Mamnoon Rahman and Justice SM Kuddus Zaman withdrew the order of the bail as Ruhul suppressed the fact that some other accused in the case had given confessional statements to the lower court against him.
In the confessional statements, the other accused said the incident of rape took place as per the instruction of Ruhul. But this information was not mentioned in the bail petition filed by Ruhul, former publicity affairs secretary of Subarnachar AL unit.
The judges yesterday sat in their private chamber and passed the withdrawal order after Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Biswojit Roy informed them about the suppression of the fact on Thursday.
DAG Roy and DAG Amit Talukdar were present at the chamber when the bench withdrew the bail order but Ruhul's lawyer Asheke Rasul was not present there.
Advocate Rasul could not be reached over phone after repeated attempts.
Attorney General Mahbubey Alam told reporters at his office that the way Ruhul secured bail from the HC was tantamount to a fraud upon the court.
“We will bring this issue to the chief justice's notice,” he added.
He also said his office would pray to the HC bench concerned to issue a contempt of court rule against Ruhul's lawyer and would submit an application to the Bangladesh Bar Council for taking action against Rasul if it was necessary.
On March 18, the same HC bench granted a one-year bail to Ruhul. But he is yet to get release from jail, Supreme Court Special Officer Mohammad Saifur Rahman said.
He also said the HC bench would pass further order on March 25.
On December 30 last year, a mother of four was gang-raped allegedly by 10 to 12 Awami League leaders for casting ballot for “sheaf of paddy”, electoral symbol of the BNP, according to the victim.
The victim's husband filed a case accusing nine with Charjabbar Police Station under Women and Children Repression Prevention Act. Ruhul, however, was not made an accused in it. Police held Ruhul four days after the incident.
Later, the husband claimed to the National Human Rights Commission that the First Information Report of the criminal case was not written by him as he is illiterate and his complaint was altered by those who wrote it for him.