Writ challenging unassailable EPR provisions filed with HC
Friday, 6 June 2008
A writ petition challenging the validity of certain sections of the unassailable Emergency Power Rules (EPR) was filed with the High Court Thursday, at a time when many VIPs have fallen under its net.
"It may be put in or mentioned before a High Court Division bench on Sunday," a counsel for the petitioners told UNB tonight.
The writ petitioners are former adviser of caretaker government Sultana Kamal, Editor of daily New Age Nurul Kabir and associate professor of Dhaka University Hafizur Rahman Curzon.
The petitioners have challenged the validity of the EPR sections 11(3), 19 (gha) and 19 (uma). The Section 11(3) bars bail to any appellant-convict tried under the EPR.
Section 19 (gha) says, 'An accused under the EPR will not be released on bail during the inquiry, investigation and trial of the case against that person, no matter whatever is stated in sections 497 and 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law'.
The validity of another section under the EPR 19 (uma) has also been challenged. It says an accused will not be entitled to seek redress from any higher courts against any order given by any court or tribunal before or during the trial until the delivery of the final verdict.
"It may be put in or mentioned before a High Court Division bench on Sunday," a counsel for the petitioners told UNB tonight.
The writ petitioners are former adviser of caretaker government Sultana Kamal, Editor of daily New Age Nurul Kabir and associate professor of Dhaka University Hafizur Rahman Curzon.
The petitioners have challenged the validity of the EPR sections 11(3), 19 (gha) and 19 (uma). The Section 11(3) bars bail to any appellant-convict tried under the EPR.
Section 19 (gha) says, 'An accused under the EPR will not be released on bail during the inquiry, investigation and trial of the case against that person, no matter whatever is stated in sections 497 and 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law'.
The validity of another section under the EPR 19 (uma) has also been challenged. It says an accused will not be entitled to seek redress from any higher courts against any order given by any court or tribunal before or during the trial until the delivery of the final verdict.