Court postpones deadline to 12 Jan for Mehazabien's response in intimidation case
Mehazabien and her brother Alishan surrendered to the court on 16 November, shortly after an arrest warrant was issued for their failure to appear on an earlier date. They were subsequently granted bail by Executive Magistrate Afroza Haque Tania.
A Dhaka court has postponed the date for actress Mehazabien Chowdhury and her brother, Alishan Chowdhury, to submit their response regarding allegations of threat and intimidation.
The Dhaka Executive Magistrate Court-3 was set to hear their response today (18 December) . However, the proceedings could not take place as the presiding judge was recently transferred. Consequently, the court fixed 12 January as the new date for the hearing.
Defense lawyer Tuhin Hawladar confirmed the development, explaining that under standard court regulations, proceedings are stayed in the absence of a presiding officer. The case files will be presented once the new judge joins the court.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Until then, all parties have been directed to appear on the newly scheduled date.
Mehazabien and her brother Alishan surrendered to the court on 16 November, shortly after an arrest warrant was issued for their failure to appear on an earlier date. They were subsequently granted bail by Executive Magistrate Afroza Haque Tania.
The legal entanglement began when a man named Amirul Islam filed a case under Sections 107 and 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the complaint, Amirul had a long-standing acquaintance with the actress, who allegedly persuaded him to invest in a new family business.
The actress has vehemently denied the charges, describing the case as "false, fabricated, and a deliberately spread rumour." In a social media post, she maintained that she does not know the plaintiff and is not involved in any business dealings that would lead to such legal complications.
Her legal team argued in court that the entire incident was manufactured and that there has never been any communication or meeting between the accused and the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claims he provided a total of Tk27 lakh in cash and through mobile financial services (bKash) at various times. He further alleged that when he sought repayment after the business failed to materialise, the siblings verbally abused him and issued death threats at a restaurant near Hatirjheel on 16 March.
