Rejection of bail petitions

This is the second time in a row that the bail petitions for the 33 opposition leaders arrested under the Speedy Trial Act on the charge of torching a bus during the April 29 hartal have been rejected. With all due respect to the judiciary, we beg to differ on the grounds cited for denial of bail to the accused. According to senior and respected jurists acting on behalf of the defendants, a number of those implicated in case were not even present in the capital on the particular date in question.
Defence lawyer Barrister Rafique-ul-Huq pointed out that according to Section 13 of the Law and Order Infringing Offences (Speedy Trial) Act 2002; the charges pressed against the leaders were bail-able. The prosecution's argument against such granting of bail is based on the premise that although many of the accused were not physically present at the location of the incident, they had nonetheless ordered the attack to take place. It seems somewhat inconceivable to accept the notion, as put forward by the prosecution, that all these leaders in a body were engaged in the act of committing arson. Furthermore, how could the accused all being very senior leaders of a few opposition parties including the BNP who have in the past occupied high seats in government including ministerial positions and many being former members of parliament disappear if granted bail. The question that comes to mind in the broader spectrum is that should such presumptions form the basis on which bail is refused?
In addition to all the legal arguments and counterarguments, there is the bigger question of how to treat senior opposition politicians including some former ministers. There is also an issue of setting standards of dealing with public figures.
Should justice be denied based on 'notions and ideas' it could pave the way for a situation where the credibility of the legal system is brought into question and that is certainly not something that sits well with democracy and the concept of independent judiciary.