The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Sunday set Monday for hearing the state鈥檚 appeals challenging the High Court orders granting bail to former Awami League minister Abdul Latif Siddique and former Ekushey Television journalist Monjurul Alam Panna in a case filed under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The case filed by Shahbagh police station sub-inspector Amirul Islam on August 28 accused Latif Siddique, Dhaka University law teacher Hafizur Rahman Kazan, journalist Panna and 13 others of conspiring and holding a meeting with government critics in Dhaka to overthrow the incumbent government.
Chamber judge Md Rezaul Haque also directed the lawyers for both Latif Siddique and Panna not to submit bail bonds to the Dhaka Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court until the hearing is held.
The chamber judge fixed the date after deputy attorney general Khandaker Bahar Rumi sought a stay on their bail, arguing that the offences were grave in nature and punishable by death or life imprisonment.
Latif Siddique and Panna are among 16 people from different professions arrested on August 28 during a meeting organised under the banner of Mancha 71 at the Dhaka Reporters鈥� Unity.
The deputy attorney general argued that the two were arrested red-handed at the Dhaka Reporters鈥� Unity during what he described as a 鈥榗onspiratorial meeting鈥� aimed at ousting the lawful interim government.
The state lawyer argued that the High Court鈥檚 interim bail order for Latif Siddique and Panna was illegal, arbitrary, and against public interest.
He argued that the video footage seized from the incident clearly showed that the accused was not just an attendee but an active participant and collaborator of the 鈥楳ancha 71鈥� platform, which had allegedly declared its readiness for 鈥榮acrifice鈥� to destabilise the state.
He said that releasing the accused at this stage could lead to tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses, many of whom are serving police officers.
He further argued that the High Court granted bail without any reasoning, issuing only a one-line order, which violates the Appellate Division鈥檚 established practice that even bailable offences require reasons, particularly in serious non-bailable offences like this one.
He submitted that the trial court had rightly rejected bail, citing the gravity of the allegations, the short period of custody, the ongoing investigation, and a real risk of being absconded after securing bail.
However, the High Court overturned that decision without addressing any of those findings.
He said that allowing a person accused of leading a violent conspiracy to overthrow the constitutionally functioning interim government to remain free would send a dangerous signal to anti-state groups and undermine the national campaign against terrorism.
Defence lawyer Sara Hossain, however, urged the court to uphold their bail, arguing that there were no specific allegations or documentary evidence against them.
