Bewildering convictions

Experts also question why detainees of DJ party raid were filmed, photographed

“The offence is not dancing or being at a DJ party. If the allegation is that they consumed intoxicating substances and disturbed public peace, what evidence was produced?”

Supreme Court lawyer Sara Hossain

The jailing of 85 people following a raid on a senior police officer’s house in Purbachal last week has raised questions over the evidence behind their convictions and the circulation of their photographs and videos.

The Detective Branch (DB) detained 85 people, including 59 men and 26 women, in a raid on a house owned by Additional DIG Abdullah Al Jahir in Police Housing-1 on October 20. 

According to DMP sources, Special Metropolitan Magistrate Assaduzzaman of DMP’s Uttara Division sentenced all of them the same day in summary trials. 

The 59 men were each given one month in jail and fined Tk 1,000, while the 26 women received 15-day terms and fines of Tk 500 each.

The detention, trials, and circulation of the detainees’ images have left their families traumatised. Most families contacted by The Daily Star declined to discuss the incident, saying they were shocked. Only one agreed to speak, on condition of anonymity.

Rajib Hossain (not his real name), whose son was among those detained, said his son, a DJ, had previously attended a birthday programme at the same house on invitation. 

This time, however, police detained him with the others on allegations of drug consumption and had him sentenced by a special court without any test to establish whether he had consumed drugs or alcohol, Rajib alleged. 

Rajib said he had visited his son at Dhaka Central Jail in Keraniganj, where he was told that none of the detainees had undergone such tests.

“When there was no test, how did they establish that they had consumed drugs or alcohol?” he asked.

Asked about this, DB chief Shafiqul Islam told The Daily Star yesterday that the detainees had been arrested on allegations of drug consumption and disorderly conduct before being punished by a special court. 

Asked under which law they were punished, he said the relevant magistrate would be able to explain the legal basis for the sentences.

However, a DB official closely involved in the operation, speaking on condition of anonymity, said police had proceeded under Section 36(5) of the Narcotics Control Act, 2018. 

The provision allows imprisonment of up to one year and a fine for anyone who, after consuming alcohol or while under the influence of an intoxicating substance, disturbs public peace or engages in annoying behaviour, or drives a vehicle while intoxicated.

Rajib also questioned the circulation of photographs and videos of the detainees and the circumstances in which some were allegedly made to show their faces.

“Can the DB circulate such videos and photographs? Under what authority were they made to show their faces? My son is not a criminal. Why should he be publicly portrayed like this?” he said.

He further alleged that his son and the other detainees might have become victims of internal disputes within the police. 

“We heard from several police sources that the additional DIG had internal issues that led to the raid,” he claimed.

Supreme Court lawyer Sara Hossain questioned the legal basis for the punishments, saying attending a DJ party or dancing was not a criminal offence.

“What exactly is an ‘illegal DJ party’? How did the party become illegal?” she told The Daily Star. “It’s not a crime in itself to go to a party, let alone a DJ party.”

If the detainees were punished under the Narcotics Control Act, she said, the authorities must establish the alleged offences through evidence. 

“The offence is not dancing or being at a DJ party. If the allegation is that they consumed intoxicating substances and disturbed public peace, what evidence was produced?” she asked.

Criticising descriptions of the gathering as an “illegal DJ party” and the participants as being involved in “antisocial activities”, she said music and dancing were part of the country’s culture.

“How can enjoying music or dancing be treated as a crime? Are they committing an offence because they were listening to modern music? This is absurd,” she said.

Sara also questioned why the detainees were filmed and their photographs and videos circulated, including footage recorded before their convictions. 

“Why were they filmed at that stage, when nothing had been proved against them? What was the justification?” she asked. 

She said the convictions did not resolve questions over the circulation of the images if the proceedings themselves were unlawful, and questioned whether publishing the images served any public interest.

“We certainly need operations against crime, but every operation must be carried out according to the law,” she said.

Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Faran Mohammad Araf also questioned the manner of the raid, saying police appeared to have acted on information without obtaining a warrant. 

He said one of the most relevant legal guidelines, interpreting article 32 of the constitution, concerned protecting detainees’ dignity at the time of apprehension.

“Even when making an arrest, law enforcers must respect an individual’s dignity and personal liberty. They cannot publicly expose or humiliate someone or turn them into an object of ridicule,” he told The Daily Star.

He said existing laws and directives concerning the media favoured protecting the dignity, privacy, and rights of accused persons rather than subjecting them to public humiliation.