Two lower court magistrates have again offered unconditional apologies to the High Court (HC) for placing actress Pori Moni on repeated police remand in a narcotic case.
The Dhaka Metropolitan magistrates — Debabrata Biswas and Atiqul Islam — granted the remands 'unconsciously', their lawyer Abdul Alim Miah Jewel said at the Sunday hearing of a petition filed by Pori Moni challenging the legality of the orders.
An HC bench of Justice Mustafa Zaman Islam and Justice ASM Abdul Mobin set November 25 to deliver their verdict on the matter.
Presenting his argument to the court on behalf of the lower court judges, lawyer Jewel said, "They [magistrates] granted the unexpected remands twice without thinking. These are unintentional mistakes. They have explained this in a written application."
The judges in their application wrote that "they will not repeat such incidents in the future and will conduct all court duties with a complete judicial mindset," Abdul added.
The magistrates granted remand against actress Shamsunnahar Smriti, popularly known as Pori Moni, three times in 27 days in a narcotics case filed following her arrest on 4 August from her Banani residence by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB).
ZI Khan Panna, Pori Moni's lawyer for the case, said, "It is alright that they have sought unconditional apologies."
However, a lesson needs to be taught on conducting court duties under Articles 111 and 112 of the constitution, he added, seeking an HC directive on providing proper training on the subject that lower courts must abide by, in accordance with the Supreme Court on such matters.
Earlier on 2 September, the HC asked the two judges to submit explanations to the court about the basis for their approval of the second and third round of remanding Pori Moni within a span of 10 days.
The court also summoned the investigating officer of the case, Kazi Golam Mostafa, to appear in person with the case docket. Complying with the court order, the lower court judges submitted their explanations and offered unconditional apology on 15 September.
Not satisfied with their explanations, on 29 September the HC sought further explanations within two days from the two lower court judges.