07:46 PM, July 20, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 07:56 PM, July 20, 2017

HC denies bail to Ragib Ali

Star file photo

The High Court today refused to grant bail to convicted industrialist Ragib Ali and his son Abdul Hye in a case filed for forging legal documents to grab the endowed property of Tarapur Tea Estate in Sylhet.

A Sylhet court on February 2 this year sentenced Ragib and Hye to 14 years in prison in the case.

The HC bench of Justice AKM Asaduzzaman and Justice Razik-Al-Jalil disposed of a petition filed by the convicts seeking bail in the case.

Deputy Attorney General Md Bashirullah told The Daily Star that the HC refused to grant bail to Ragib Ali and his son Abdul Hye as an appeal against their conviction and sentence is pending with the district and sessions judge’s court in Sylhet.

The district and sessions judge’s court is scheduled to hold hearing on their appeal on August 18, he said.

DAG Bashirullah said Ragib Ali and Abdul Hye cannot get released from jail following the HC order.

Read More: Ragib, son get 14-yr jail terms

Ragib Ali and Abdul Hye sought bail from the HC on the ground that Ragib Ali is old and physically very sick, he added.  

On February 2, Sylhet’s Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Saifuzzaman Hiru ordered equal punishment for both the accused-- Ragib and Hye: six years' imprisonment each under section 466 and section 468, and one year each under section 420 and section 471 of the Penal Code in the case.

The court also fined them TK 10,000 each, in default of which they would have to serve another three months in jail.

The chief metropolitan magistrate said Ragib and his son are influential, but they forged the land ministry's official documents to grab endowed property of Tarapur Tea Estate, which was proved to the court undoubtedly.

SM Abdul Kadir, the then assistant commissioner (Land) of Sylhet Sadar, filed two cases against Ragib with Sylhet Kotwali Police Station.

One case was filed on September 25, 2005, for fabricating legal documents. It was lodged after recommendations from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Land.

Another case was filed on November 2, 2005, for grabbing the endowed property of the tea estate. The case is now under trial with the same court.