21 Aug grenade attack: Appellate Division withdraws HC's observation on fresh investigation
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has upheld the High Court's acquittal of BNP's acting chairman Tarique Rahman and other accused in the August 21 grenade attack case.
The court expunged the High Court's earlier remark calling for "a proper and independent investigation," deeming it a violation of the principle of separation of powers.
A six-member Appellate Division bench, led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, upheld the acquittals and dismissed the state's appeal today (4 September 2025).
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Reacting to the verdict, SM Shahjahan, lawyer for another accused, former state minister for Home Affairs Lutfuzzaman Babar, said, "The observation on reinvestigation was the state's responsibility, not the judiciary's, which is why it was withdrawn, and the acquittal order will apply to Tarique Rahman and others who could not file appeals."
The Appellate Division stated that, under the principle of Separation of Powers, courts should generally avoid making policy decisions. Since the High Court's observations were policy-related, they were withdrawn.
It found no weakness or illegality in the High Court's decision, except for the observations, and unanimously dismissed the appeal. The operative part of the High Court's judgment was upheld, including for those who did not file appeals.
On 19 December 2024, the High Court observed that justice required a proper and independent investigation into the killing, which was still absent, and recommended sending the case to the Ministry of Home Affairs for a fresh investigation by an appropriate expert body. The Appellate Division withdrew this part of the verdict.
The verdict also noted that the trial court had sentenced Lutfuzzaman Babar to death, Tarique Rahman to life imprisonment, and other accused to varying punishments in the case, based on Mufti Abdul Hannan's confessional statement—despite him already being in a condemned cell with a death sentence in another case. The Appellate Division said this was a serious violation of law and procedure.
The Appellate Division said, "The confessional statements of the accused raise serious doubts about their voluntariness. The alleged mastermind of the offence, Mufti Abdul Hannan, was produced before the magistrate to record his second confessional statement four years after his first, while he had been languishing in a condemned cell for a prolonged period. The remaining accused made confessional statements when they were produced before the magistrate after being in police custody for a long time.
"Furthermore, the confessional statements of three accused were recorded by a single magistrate on the same day with unusual haste, in gross violation of the prescribed rules. The requests of most accused to retract their confessional statements on the grounds of inhuman torture and unauthorised detention… make the confessional statements highly doubtful in terms of their voluntary nature."
It added, "In view of the facts, circumstances, settled legal principles, and the serious doubts about the voluntary nature of the confessional statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898… we are of the opinion that the High Court was justified in rejecting the death reference, allowing the appeals and jail appeals, making the rules absolute, and thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellants and the non-appealing convicts."
It further stated, "Moreover, the prosecution's case was undermined by the execution of accused Mufti Abdul Hannan before his examination under Section 342… Accordingly, either because these confessions were obtained by oppression of the persons making them and/or due to the aggravated circumstances… these confessions are legally unreliable. Ultimately, the confessions do not pass the test of reliability."
