Staff Reporter: Police have filed a chargesheet against journalist Nomani and three others under the much-hyped and controversial Digital Security Act despite the forensic report finding nothing in dispute. The case has now been transferred to the Barisal Cyber Tribunal after the chargesheet was filed in the lower court. The defendant in the case has applied for quashing of the charge sheet. The application is pending hearing. Regarding the case, the lawyer of the defendant Mamunur Rashid Nomani, advocet Kazi Monir, said that the charge sheet given by the police is completely false, fabricated and baseless. Because in the case, no evidence was found in the forensic report about the truth of the allegations made by the plaintiff. Apart from this, there is no element of section 26 (2) /33 (2) of Digital Security Act 2018 against the defendants. advocet Kazi Monir also said, the defendants are completely innocent, innocent. The plaintiff has filed the case for harassment only for harassment, financial loss and social humiliation. He said, “In the meantime, we have applied for exemption from the case under Section 265 (C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Cyber Tribunal. Barisal senior journalist Mamunur Rashid Nomani, the defendant in the controversial and alleged case, said that the investigating officer of the case submitted the copy of the statement of the case as a charge sheet to the court without investigation. The charge sheet is full of false stories. Which has no truth. Nomani said that in the case of Digital Security Act 2018 in Bangladesh, the investigating officer has 60 (sixty) days first, then 15 (fifteen) days, a total of 75 days to submit the investigation report, but in our case, the investigating officer is 1 (one) year 11 (eleven). After 17 (seventeen) days of the month, the charge sheet was filed in the court. The case was filed on 13/09/2020. But the investigating officer filed the chargesheet in the court after one year eleven months and 17 days. In this regard Barisal bar senior advocet Panna said the investigating officer wasted time for harassment by misusing the entire law and colluding with the plaintiffs. Maybe the plaintiff is an influential member of the ruling party so the investigating officer did this. Mr. Panna said, 1 (one) year, 10 (ten) months and 17 (seventeen) days are not required to submit the investigation report. Took extra time only for harassment. He said, in the case of Digital Security Act, it is said that the investigation should be completed within a maximum of 75 days. But, due to various reasons, we often see, despite the provisions in the law, it is not implemented. That is, the instructions in terms of time are not followed. Whether compliance with this time limit is ‘mandatory’ is to be decided by the High Court.

আরও পড়ুন………..

Bangladeshi journalist Mamunur Rashid Nomani

harassed following 2020 assault, detention

Regarding the charge sheet of the case, Mr. Ghiyas Uddin, a member of the Barisal Bar and another senior lawyer on behalf of journalist Nomani, said, “I was shocked to see the statement and charge sheet copy of the case. Exactly the same. The proof of declaration is the charge sheet copy. He said about the forensic report, the investigating officer mentioned at one place in the charge sheet, it can be seen by reviewing the evidence report sent for forensic examination, Expert Gazi Tajmilur Rahman Sub-Inspector-Inspector, BP 8814169662, IT Forensic Bangladesh Police, CID, Dhaka. Opined that mark No. 1, “samsung glaxy note-5 sm-n920p” does not show the faces of the disputed 5 stills obtained on the mobile phone. And it has not been edited, opined by Photography Specialist, Photography Branch, Bangladesh Police, CID, Dhaka. Photographic Specialist, Photographic Branch, Bangladesh Police CID, Dhaka has opined that 1. The victim’s face is not visible in the controversial still image stored on the DVD, along with a sample image of Barisal City Corporation Mayor Serniabat Sadiq Abdullah. No opinion can be given for this reason. And the sample image has not been edited so cannot comment. In this regard, the defendant number two in the case Kamrul Islam said that the plaintiff ruling party Bangladesh Awami League Barisal branch organizing secretary and ward councilor and the victim ruling party Bangladesh Awami League Barisal branch general secretary Mayor of Barisal City Corporation Serniabat Sadiq Abdullah ruling party Bangladesh Awami League ledear and Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina Relative so he is an influential person he filed false case against us and forced police to give false charge sheet.

There is a question whether the court will be able to act impartially due to the fear of Serniabat Sadiq Abdullah being a relative of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Currently, the defendant is on conditional and surety bail. Mr. Kamrul said, we have applied for exemption from the court case through our lawyer. Which was dated 2nd March’23. The court has given time to hear our application on the next fixed date. Mr. Gias Uddin, senior advocet of Barisal Bar, said that the fact that the investigator has filed a charge sheet under Section 26(2)/33(2) of the Digital Security Act even after the forensic report has not been proved is very sad and misuse of the law. If the case is conducted on a fabricated and false charge sheet by the police, under Section 26 (2) of the Digital Security Act, 5 years imprisonment and a fine of Tk 5 lakh or both, and under Section 33 (2) of the Digital Security Act, 14 years imprisonment and a fine of Tk 25 lakh. or punishable with both. The possibility remains. There are many reasons for this. Because the plaintiff is powerful and influential. Regarding the case, journalist Nomani said, “If the cyber tribunal court files a complaint against me without exempting us from the case, and if the application for exemption from the case filed by us is rejected, we will file a writ in the High Court with a copy of the order.” We will handle the case with the opinion and advice of our senior advocet in the hope of getting justice in the high court. Hope we get justice.

SI Arifur Rahman, the investigating officer of the case, said, I took the responsibility as the second investigating officer of the case and discussed with the parties the information and quotations received and duly followed their instructions and submitted the charge sheet to the court. Regarding the forensic report, he said, the forensic department of CID did not give any opinion as the face was not visible with the photo mentioned in the case in the forensic report which is mentioned in the detailed forensic report.

It is to be noted that on September 13, 2020, the editor of the popular online news portal ‘Barisal Khabar’, Mamunur Rashid Nomani, Jubo League leader Kamrul Mridha and car driver Labu Gazi were arrested by the police for allegedly taking photos of Barisal City Corporation Mayor Serniabat Sadiq Abdullah. When a false and fabricated case is filed under the Digital Security Act, they are arrested in that case and sent to jail through the court. In the case, they are released on bail from the court after spending 17 days in jail. The case is currently pending in the Barisal Cyber Tribunal.