Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

High Court Division · Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Tasmim Mahid Chanchal v State

Criminal Appeal(H) 3081/2026 · Decided 10 September 2026

Read the judgment ↓Every listing of this case Download PDF

2judges on the bench

4pages

14paragraphs

1laws considered

Summary

The accused appealed against an order of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 06, Dhaka rejecting his prayer for bail in a case arising from Dhanmondi Police Station Case No. 13 dated 18.10.2025. The informant alleged that the accused, whom she had met through Facebook, had sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marriage and later refused to marry her. A Medical Board found signs of sexual intercourse that were not recent, and the police submitted a charge sheet under section 9(Kha) of the Ain of 2000, as amended in 2025. After a limited period of bail for his examination, the Tribunal sent him to custody and refused bail. On admitting the appeal, the High Court Division granted ad-interim bail for his semester examination and on the submission that he would try to settle the matter. Finding that the examination was over and no settlement had been reached, the court found no merit in the appeal, dismissed it and directed the accused to surrender within 30 days.

Issues

Q1
Whether the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal's order refusing bail to the accused, charge-sheeted under section 9(Kha) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, should be interfered with on appeal.

Key points

The ad-interim bail granted at admission rested on the accused's scheduled semester examination and the submission that he would try to settle the matter, and by the time of hearing the examination had been completed and no amicable settlement had been reached.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the court found no merit in the appeal against refusal of bail and dismissed it.
The accused was directed to surrender before the trial court within 30 days of its receipt of the judgment, failing which the trial court was at liberty to secure his arrest in accordance with law.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

From the judgment, Justice Md. Khairul Alam

Law considered

Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, section 9(Kha)

The judgment

In the court’s own words.

Criminal Appeal(H) 3081/2026, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 4 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.

Find in this judgmentPDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Present

Mr. Justice Md. Khairul Alam

and

Mr. Justice Md. Rafizul Islam

Criminal Appeal No. 3081 of 2026.

Tasmim Mahid Chanchal

………. Accused-appellant

-Versus-

The State

………. Respondent

Mr. Sajib Chandra Banik, Advocate,

….. For the appellant

Mr. Sikder Guljar Ahmed, Advocate

… For the respondent No.2

Heard & Judgment on: 10.09.2026

Md. Khairul Alam, J

This appeal, at the instance of the accused-appellant, is

1directed against the order dated 24.05.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 06, Dhaka, in Nari-O-Shishu Case No. 54 of 2026, arising out of Dhanmondi Police Station Case No. 13 dated 18.10.2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 228 of 2025, under section 9(Kha) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2025), rejecting the prayer for bail of the accused-appellant.

The relevant facts for disposal of the appeal are that

2respondent No. 2, as informant, lodged a First Information Report (F.I.R.) with Dhanmondi Police Station against the F:\Kashem, BO (Crl. MIsc. Division)\Criminal Judgment\Cr. Appeal No. 3081 of 2016 Dismissed with Direction.docx

Page 2

accused-appellant alleging that the accused-appellant and the informant became acquainted through Facebook and subsequently developed a relationship and taking advantage of the relationship, the appellant took her to Daimasu Restaurant, Dhanmondi, and raped her in its smoking zone upon assuring her that he would marry her. The accused took vulgar photographs of her and blackmailed her to continue the relationship. On 30.08.2025, the informant met the appellant at Dhanmondi and, at about 00:20 hours on 31.08.2025, he took her to Hotel Dhanmondi Prime, where they stayed and had sexual intercourse on the assurance of marriage. Thereafter, the appellant avoided her and, when pressed, stated that his parents would not accept the relationship and threatened her. The informant subsequently complained to the Dhaka University authorities. On 15.10.2025, the date fixed for amicable settlement, the appellant stated that he would not marry her. Hence, the F.I.R. On the basis of the said F.I.R., Dhanmondi Police Station Case No. 13 dated 18.10.2025 under section 9(1) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2025) was initiated, which gave rise to Nari-O- Shishu Case No. 54 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. No. 228 of 2025.

On 20.10.2025, the victim was examined by a Medical

3Board, which opined that the victim, namely, “Mst. Sagida F:\Kashem, BO (Crl. MIsc. Division)\Criminal Judgment\Cr. Appeal No. 3081 of 2016 Dismissed with Direction.docx

Page 3

Tayeba”, had signs of sexual intercourse, which were not recent and forceful, found on her body. The Medical Board also assessed her age to be about 20 years.

After holding an investigation, the police submitted a

4charge sheet against the accused under section 9(Kha) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2025). The case is now pending before the learned Judge, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 06, Dhaka, for framing of charge.

On 23.04.2026, the accused-appellant voluntarily

5surrendered before the Tribunal along with a bail application. Upon hearing, the learned Judge of the Tribunal was pleased to enlarge the appellant on bail till 10.05.2026 on the ground of his examination. Thereafter, on 10.05.2026, the accused-appellant was sent to custody.

On 24.05.2026, the prayer for bail of the accused-

6appellant was again rejected.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order,

7the accused-appellant preferred the instant appeal.

At the time of admission of the appeal, the accused-

8appellant was granted ad-interim bail on the ground that his 1st Semester Final Examination of the 4th year was scheduled to be held from 14.07.2026 to 30.07.2026, and upon the oral submission that if enlarged on bail, the accused-appellant F:\Kashem, BO (Crl. MIsc. Division)\Criminal Judgment\Cr. Appeal No. 3081 of 2016 Dismissed with Direction.docx

Page 4

would make an effort to settle the matter amicably. The matter was therefore fixed on 02.09.2026 for further order.

Accordingly, the matter has appeared in the list for further

9order. It appears that the examination of the accused-appellant has already been completed and that no amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties.

Heard the learned Advocates for the contending parties

10and perused the documents on record.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

11case, we find no merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The accused-appellant is directed to surrender before the

12learned trial Court within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgment by the learned trial Court, failing which the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to secure his arrest in accordance with law.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Court

13below at once. Md. Rafizul Islam, J.

I agree.

14Kashem, B.O F:\Kashem, BO (Crl. MIsc. Division)\Criminal Judgment\Cr. Appeal No. 3081 of 2016 Dismissed with Direction.docx