Armed men demolished the house of an expatriate and looted his belongings in Paschim Mirzapur, Nachole upazila of Chapainawabganj, on October 18, prompting allegations of police bias against the officer-in-charge (OC) of Nachole police station.
The expatriate's mother, Nasrin Alam, has accused OC Sukomal Chandra Debnath of delaying the registration of a case, pressuring the complainant to remove references to firearms from the first information report (FIR) and visiting the scene with the prime accused.
In a recent complaint to the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Nasrin alleged that the OC intimidated and harassed her family. She also claimed that they had received no cooperation from police even after the case was registered.
Family alleges police interference
Nasrin told Dhaka Tribune that armed men demolished the concrete house of her expatriate son, Abu Hena Mostofa Zaman, and looted its belongings on October 18.
When the property's caretaker, Md Shariful Islam, went to the police station the following day to file a case, an investigation officer reportedly refused to accept it on the OC's instructions.
Shariful returned the next day and waited until noon. Police prepared the FIR only after some local journalists learned about the incident.
Nasrin alleged that Shariful was told the case would not be accepted if it mentioned firearms. The OC reportedly pressured him to remove the reference, claiming there were no firearms or explosives in Nachole.
According to the complaint, the case was eventually registered on October 23. Nasrin also alleged that Shariful's signature was taken on the case documents without a date being mentioned.
The case names 9 people and 20-25 unidentified individuals as accused. It states that the accused entered a plot around 4am on October 17 and demolished a 2-room tin-shed building, causing an estimated Tk5 lakh in damage.
According to the case statement, the accused took 2 beds, 4 chairs, 2 tables, a wardrobe, a showcase, wooden and iron doors, 2 ceiling fans, a solar-powered IPS, 10 sacks of urea and diammonium phosphate (DAP) fertilizer, grills and iron windows worth Tk4.5 lakh, along with Tk80,000 in cash and documents.
Nasrin further alleged that on October 22, the OC visited the property with police personnel and Abdur Rahim, the prime accused, and stopped people from taking photographs or recording videos.
Her son-in-law, retired Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Md Nazrul Islam, subsequently informed the superintendent of police (SP) about the matter.
According to Nasrin, the SP said Rahim had arrived at the scene after noticing the police and that the OC had not recognized him. She disputed the explanation, saying Rahim lived 20km away and was known to police.
The complaint also states that the accused filed a counter-case against Nasrin's expatriate son, her Dhaka-based daughter Touhida Roksana Nupur and Nazrul, accusing them of land grabbing.
Nasrin alleged that the OC did not question the counter-case but told journalists that it was under investigation.
She also accused the OC of providing a journalist with negative information about her family, raising concerns about her children's reputation and safety.
Nasrin further said that on October 24, the OC refused to accept her general diary (GD) application. She had also submitted photographs, videos and other evidence to the district SP but received no remedy.
OC denies allegations
Denying the allegations, OC Sukomal Chandra Debnath told Dhaka Tribune on Wednesday that the land did not belong to Abu Hena Mostofa Zaman but to Abdur Rahim.
He said Abu Hena had leased the land for 10 years to cultivate an orchard. The lease expired last year and was subsequently extended for another year through a written agreement on stamp paper.
Rejecting the allegation of delaying the case, the OC said: “After learning of the incident, we immediately took the matter into consideration and registered the case. An investigation is underway.”
Asked about the allegation that the prime accused accompanied him to the scene, the OC said there had been many people at the location, making it difficult to identify which side they belonged to.
“I visited the scene with Sharif, the defendant in the case, and the security guard of that property. They did not raise any such allegation at the time,” he said.
Regarding the allegation that he visited the scene with the accused, the OC said the case was filed on October 23, while the site was visited the previous day, October 22.
“So, before the case was filed, it was difficult to say who was an accused and who was not,” he said.