The imprisonment of 85 people following a police raid on a senior police officer’s house in Dhaka has raised serious questions about the fairness of the summary proceedings, with lawyers and human rights advocates demanding to know whether each detainee was given a proper opportunity to defend themselves.
The controversy has deepened after the seizure list from the Bhatara raid recorded just one yaba tablet, several bottles of liquor, drug-consumption paraphernalia and a small quantity of a substance identified as kush -- far less than the substantial drug recovery initially described by police.
The central question is no longer simply what happened inside the house, but what evidence was used to establish an offence against each of the 85 people who were subsequently jailed.
Barrister Sara Hossain told Dhaka Tribune that a human rights violation had “certainly” occurred.
Legal experts have questioned whether the detainees were allowed to consult lawyers, whether individual allegations were examined and whether the proceedings met the safeguards required by law.
Article 33 of the Constitution guarantees an arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice.
Yet the available account does not identify the specific offence established against each detainee, whether individual admissions were recorded or what evidence was considered before sentences were imposed.
The identities of the presiding magistrates, the legal provisions invoked and the individual conviction orders have also not been made public.
One tablet, 85 convictions
Detectives detained 85 people, including 26 women, during the raid on a house owned by Additional Deputy Inspector General Abdullah Al Zahir.
The men were sentenced to one month in jail and fined Tk1,000 each, with an additional 15 days’ imprisonment for non-payment.
The women received 15-day jail terms and Tk500 fines, with another three days in default of payment.
According to the seizure list, police recovered an empty 750ml bottle of Carew’s whisky, approximately 500ml of Royal Stag whisky, around 200ml of Smirnoff vodka and another bottle of Indian whisky.
The inventory also included one yaba tablet, paraphernalia used to consume the drug and a small quantity of kush.
Earlier, Detective Branch officials had claimed that large quantities of liquor, cannabis, yaba and other drugs had been recovered.
Several detectives acknowledged that the limited seizure was surprising given the number of people detained and the allegations of prolonged drug-related activities at the property.
Deputy Commissioner Elias Kabir of the DB’s Uttara division, who led the operation, said the detainees had consumed liquor and yaba before police arrived, leaving relatively little to be recovered.
However, the seizure of one tablet does not, by itself, establish possession or consumption by every person present.
Lawyers argue that attendance at a private gathering cannot automatically be treated as proof of an offence. Any allegation of illegal possession or consumption must be established against the individual concerned.
Questions over legal safeguards
The summary nature of the proceedings has brought the detainees’ legal protections under scrutiny.
Rights advocates say the authorities must explain whether the accused were informed of the allegations against them, allowed access to legal counsel and given an opportunity to respond.
The legal basis for imposing different sentences on men and women also remains unclear from the available information.
Advocate Shahdeen Malik told Dhaka Tribune that human rights violations do not always provide a straightforward route to legal remedies under Bangladesh’s existing legal framework.
“Even if there has been a human rights violation, has any law been violated?” he asked, questioning the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for obtaining redress.
He noted that the National Human Rights Commission cannot itself impose criminal punishment or issue binding judicial decrees.
Under its governing legislation, the commission may investigate complaints, seek reconciliation and recommend legal action or compensation.
Malik said that where a rights violation also constitutes a criminal offence, including unlawful detention or physical torture, legal action may be pursued through the ordinary criminal justice system.
The distinction makes the circumstances of the convictions particularly important: the legality of the proceedings depends on the powers exercised, the offences alleged and whether the required procedures were followed.
Senior officer’s role under scrutiny
The raid has also prompted questions about the use of the property owned by Additional DIG Zahir.
Kabir said five of the house’s six rooms were rented through online booking platforms, while the sixth was occupied by a caretaker.
According to police, the property was rented for Tk18,500 a day, with additional guests paying Tk600 each. Investigators alleged that 20 to 22 parties were held there every month.
Kabir claimed that Mahbubul Alam, who managed the arrangements, received 30% of the earnings, while Zahir received the remaining 70%.
Zahir has denied organising drug parties.
He told other news outlets that the property was rented for birthdays and other private functions, with rules prohibiting illegal activities. He maintained that the money he received was rental income and said he had been misled about the number of people attending.
Following the raid, he was removed from his previous assignment in the Maintenance and Repair branch and attached to Police Headquarters.
No finding of criminal responsibility against the officer has been established in the information available.
