Despite video evidence, three investigations fail to link accused to Sitakunda robbery

Despite CCTV footage capturing the broad daylight robbery at the Sony-Rangs showroom in Chattogram's Sitakunda, police found no evidence of criminal involvement of the accused, even after a three-pronged investigation conducted by the Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI), Detective Branch (DB), and district police.

CCTV footage shows that on 7 August 2024, seven to eight people broke the lock of the Sony-Rangs showroom at Abid Complex in Bhatiari Bazar and looted electronic goods. The entire incident was captured on the CCTV camera of Bank Asia next to the showroom.

In connection with the incident, Sony-Rangs dealer Mohammad Azam Uddin filed a case in the Chattagram Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court on 18 September 2024.

The owner of the market, Abul Faiz, his son Md Abid Hossain, and five other unidentified people have been accused. The complaint states that the showroom's CCTV camera was destroyed before the theft and the signboard was removed after the incident.

According to the charge sheet of the case, a total of 144 electronic products of different brands were looted from the showroom and warehouse. Among them, there were three smart refrigerators of the Sony brand, 42 TVs of the Rangs brand, 33 refrigerators of the Konka brand, 13 LED TVs, four washing machines, four microwaves and 50 ACs of different models. In addition, 39 more refrigerators and freezers have been allegedly looted. According to the case documents, the total value of these looted products is about Tk91,36,000. 

Speaking to The Business Standard, Azam Uddin said that before the looting, he had stored some products in his house as there was not enough space in the showroom and warehouse. But the investigating officers did not recover the looted goods from the showroom but they seized the products in his house and showed them as looted goods, he said.

The plaintiff claimed that the company and dealer receipts and product IDs of the products in the house do not match the information mentioned in the seizure list. He categorically alleged that the investigating officers have done this kind of job, taking undue advantage from the defendants in this connection. 

Azam Uddin also said, "They did not stop even after looting the showroom. Later, Abul Faiz filed a case against me with a claim of Tk75 lakh from me after forging my signature on the check from my bank account. Later, he gave the responsibility to his son Md Abid Hossain as a power of attorney. Similarly, another unknown person also filed another case demanding Tk75 lakh. Later, another person named Hoinari Mulk filed another case demanding Tk20 lakh from me and I had to stay in jail for a month and 10 days in that case."

The investigation of the case was initially given to the PBI. On 22 March 2025, PBI officer SM Rezaul Hasan Patwary submitted the investigation report to the court. In the report, he mentioned that the scene was inspected, draft maps, index cards and photographs were collected, statements of witnesses were taken and seized evidence was reviewed. 

However, no evidence was found in support of the charges against the accused during the investigation. The report also states that the plaintiff could not present any suitable evidence to support his allegations. 

Regarding the investigation, SM Rezaul Hasan Patwari told TBS, "The CCTV footage was unclear and the defendant could not be seen clearly there. As a result, I did not find any evidence of a crime during the investigation. I prepared the report based on the information and data I received at that time. Later, the person who conducted the new investigation mentioned the CCTV footage."

"Since this is a very old case, there are complications with the matter. I have to face accountability in this regard, so I have also reported the matter to the headquarters. I have written in the report only the information I have received," he added. 

The plaintiff later filed a petition against the PBI investigation. On 17 June 2025, the court ordered the district's DB police to reinvestigate the case. Later, on 30 August 2025, DB Officer-in-Charge Mohammad Sajedul Islam submitted the investigation report to the court. 

The DB report said that while the CCTV footage collected by the previous investigating officer showed some people removing goods from the plaintiff's shop, the investigation could not confirm that the accused were involved in the theft. The investigation also revealed that the evidence seized from the plaintiff's own residence was not found there later. 

When Mohammad Sajedul Islam was asked about the investigation into the case, he hung up the phone saying he was on duty for VVIP protocol.

When the plaintiff filed an objection against the investigation report, the court ordered further investigation. In the order, the court said that the investigation report was incomplete due to the absence of important CCTV footage and eyewitness information. Under such situation, the court assigned the additional superintendent (Sitakunda circle) of Chattogram district police to conduct a re-investigation and ordered them to collect and analyse CCTV footage, interrogate PBI and DB officials and review reports, try to recover goods from the scene and prepare a seizure list, collect ownership certificates, and take necessary measures to identify and arrest the accused.

On 13 November 2025, Additional Superintendent of Police (Sitakunda circle) Md Labib Abdullah submitted an investigation report to the court. He mentioned in the report that no direct or indirect evidence of theft was found against the accused in the overall investigation of the case, evidence, witness statements and review of relevant documents. As a result, an application was made to exempt the defendants from liability in the case.

Md Labib Abdullah, currently serving in Pabna district, told TBS, "This is a long-ago incident. It is not possible to say specifically now whether the CCTV footage was seized or what is mentioned in the investigation in this regard. We will have to look at the docket and documents of the case. To be honest, I don't remember anything about it now."

On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed that the CCTV footage seized by the court shows scenes of theft, breaking locks and removal of electronic equipment. But the investigating officers ignored that important footage without properly evaluating it, he claimed.

According to the plaintiff, if the CCTV footage was fully analysed, the real mystery of the incident could have been revealed.

Regarding the allegations, Abul Faiz told TBS, "The goods worth Tk91 lakh that are being reported stolen, the PBI investigated and found all those goods in the building. So, how did I loot his goods? The rest of the goods are his – in the market, godown and showroom."

He added, "The showroom that is being reported is about 400 square feet. Whether it is possible to store goods worth Tk91 lakh or not, the court will decide."

Regarding the CCTV footage, he said, "Although some people are seen in the footage taking out goods, it is necessary to confirm who those people are."

However, there is no information on the analysis of the CCTV footage in the three separate police investigation reports. 

Although the criminals were supposed to be identified by analysing this CCTV footage during the investigation, the three investigating officers did not find any crime against the accused.