Ten sets of human remains were recovered after a fire tore through TUPTUP Resto and Resort in Ukhiya’s Inani on Saturday morning. With relatives reporting 11 people missing, questions are mounting over why a police case linked to the deaths names only one of the two people presented as the resort’s owners, and how responsibility is assigned.
The resort’s website identifies Tanvir Sultan Meah and Neaj Morshed as owners and features a joint welcome message to guests. But the case filed at Ukhiya Police Station names Tanvir, along with several employees, while Morshed is not listed.
Lawyer Sejan Ehsan in Cox’s Bazar says he cannot understand why action has been taken against only one of the two named owners. He has also questioned the legal provisions used in the case.
Ukhiya Police chief Atikur Rahman said investigators initially knew the name of one owner and had since learned of another. Any further names, he said, would be added to the case as information emerged.
A former resort employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he had heard that Morshed lived near the home of Jahid Hossain Sumon, the resort’s assistant manager and the fourth suspect. The employee said Morshed ran an internet business in Chattogram.
Asked about Morshed, investigating officer Sub-Inspector Rimon Ghosh said: “The investigation is ongoing. Nothing can be said at this stage.”
bdnews24.com is still seeking Morshed’s comment.
The case was filed on Oct 17 over deaths and grievous injuries allegedly caused by negligence.
Police said four people were named, alongside 19 unidentified people. One manager has been arrested; police are investigating the others.
The resort website’s “About” section lists Tanvir and Morshed as “owners”. The case record names Tanvir as proprietor, general manager Saeed Ahmed, manager Mohammad Saeed and assistant manager Jahid Hossain Sumon.
The case was filed by Ukhiya Police Sub-Inspector Ashish Sutradhar. It cites sections 304A, 338 and 34 of the Penal Code.
More Names May Be Added
Asked why only one of the two owners was named, Officer Atikur said: “At first, we got one name; now another name is emerging.”
He said a remand application had been filed for Suman and questioning him could yield more information.
Atikur said documents at the resort had been destroyed in the fire, complicating efforts to collect records such as its trade licence. Police are seeking documents from the union council and other offices.
Ehsan said the investigation should establish whether the resort had the necessary approvals and complied with fire-safety and environmental rules.
He said the complaint did not clearly explain the roles of the owners or the responsibility of employees after the deaths.
He also suggested employees might have been accused unnecessarily, while the decision to proceed against only one owner remained unexplained.
The investigation, he said, should identify who was actually responsible and guide any further action.
Section 304A covers causing death through a rash or negligent act that does not amount to culpable homicide.
Section 338 concerns causing grievous hurt through an act that endangers life or personal safety, while Section 34 deals with acts done by several people in furtherance of a common intention.
Ehsan said that if safety or licensing rules were knowingly breached, the allegations could be more serious.
But the number of deaths or any missing approvals alone would not determine the appropriate charge.
Investigators would need evidence about each person’s conduct, knowledge, intention and negligence, and how it related to the deaths.
It remains unclear how the suspects were selected, whether an owner was omitted and what specific allegations apply to each person.