Image description
Representational image. | File photo

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Thursday rejectedÌý the state’s appeal against the High Court verdict acquitting 48 accused, including BNP acting chairman Tarique Rahman, in the August 21, 2004 grenade attack cases.

Citing the doctrine of separation of powers, the six judge Appellate Division bench chaired by chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed observed in the grenade attack case that the judiciary cannot dictate policy matters or investigative decisions that fall under the executive branch.


Describing the High Court’s call for reinvestigation as ‘absurd,’ the Appellate Division set aside that part of the judgment.

The court ordered that the acquitted individuals be released from jail immediately unless they are wanted in other cases.

The Appellate Division upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit Tarique and others in the grenade attack cases, citing serious doubts over the voluntariness of confessional statements made by three accused.

As a result, the Appellate Division concluded that the High Court was right to reject the trial court’s conviction and sentence, citing the confessions as both coerced and obtained under deeply flawed conditions.

In its observation, the apex court noted that the confessions under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code were questionable due to the conditions under which they were obtained.

Several accused, including Mufti Abdul Hannan, were in prolonged custody—some in death row cells—before being presented to magistrates.

Others were held in police custody for extended periods without proper judicial oversight.

The court highlighted that three accused had their confessional statements recorded on the same day by a single magistrate in what it called an ‘unusual haste,’ violating procedural safeguards.

It further pointed out that the accused had later retracted their confessions, alleging they were made under duress, including torture and illegal detention by law enforcement agencies. These circumstances, the court ruled, made the statements legally unreliable.

Ìý