Shahed gets life term in arms case

Regent Group Chairman Mohammad Shahed has been sentenced to life imprisonment in an arms case.
Judge KM Emrul Kayesh of the Special Tribunal-1 in Dhaka delivered the verdict in presence of Shahed at the courtroom.
Shahed was also given seven years' imprisonment for possessing bullets but that punishment will be run concurrently, the judge said.
Before pronouncing the judgement, Shahed, an accused in over 76 cases, was produced before the court amid tight security.
According to the judgement, the accused was given the highest punishment as the prosecution proved charges brought against Shahed.
In his observation, the judge said Shahed was a great fraud in disguise of gentleness. "So, the accused does not deserve the court's mercy."
This judgment will send a clear message for other criminals like Shahed, the judge added.
Dhaka Metropolitan Public Prosecutor Abdullah Abu expressed satisfaction over the verdict. However, Defence lawyer Moniruzzaman said they would challenge the verdict at the higher court.
Shahed was arrested on July 15 from Satkhira when he was trying to leave the country on a boat.
He was later remanded in a case filed over issuing fake Covid-19 test results and charging patients unfairly for testing and treating the virus.
On July 19, a team of DB police found Shahed's private car in front of a house at Sector-11 in the city's Uttara Paschim area.
They then seized a pistol with bullets from the car and later a case under the Arms Act was filed against him with Uttara Paschim Police Station.
DB Inspector Sairul Islam, on July 30, submitted the charge sheet to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court of Dhaka.
The Special Tribunal-1 of Dhaka framed charges against Shahed on August 27 in the case.
Eleven prosecution witnesses, including complainant of the case, gave their depositions in the case before the tribunal.
Earlier on August 18, 2010, another Dhaka court sentenced Shahed to six months of simple imprisonment and fined him Tk 53 lakh in absentia in the cheque dishonour case.
Comments