Woman accuses Nachole OC of misconduct in house demolition case

Nachole police station Officer-in-Charge (OC) Sukomal Chandra Debnath faces allegations of delaying a house demolition case, pressuring the complainant to remove firearm references from the FIR and visiting the scene of the incident with the prime accused.

Nasrin Alam filed a complaint on Saturday with the inspector general of police (IGP), accusing the OC of bias, intimidation and harassment of her family.

She said armed men demolished her expatriate son Abu Hena Mostofa Zaman's concrete house in Paschim Mirzapur on 18 October and looted it.

Caretaker Md Shariful Islam went to the police station the next day, but an investigation officer refused to register the case, reportedly on the OC's instructions.

Shariful returned the following day and waited until noon, before police prepared the FIR after some local journalists learnt of the matter.

Nasrin alleged Shariful was told the case would not be registered if firearms were mentioned. The OC allegedly pressured him to remove the reference, claiming Nachole had no firearms or explosives.

The case was eventually registered on 23 October, according to the complaint. Nasrin also alleged that Shariful's signature had been taken on the case documents without a date being mentioned.

The case names nine people and 20 to 25 unidentified accused. According to the complaint, they entered a plot around 4:00am on 17 October and demolished a two-room tin-shed building, causing damage estimated at Tk5 lakh.

Read More

50 illegal structures demolished at Old Buriganga Channel

The accused allegedly took two beds, four chairs, two tables, a wardrobe, showcase, wooden and iron doors, two ceiling fans, a solar-powered IPS, 10 sacks of urea and DAP fertiliser, grills and iron windows worth Tk4.5 lakh, plus Tk80,000 and documents.

Nasrin alleged the OC visited the site on 22 October with police and Abdur Rahim, the prime accused, and stopped people from taking photographs or videos.

Her son-in-law, retired deputy inspector general of police Md Nazrul Islam, informed the SP. The SP reportedly said the OC did not recognise Rahim, who arrived after noticing police. Nasrin said Rahim lived 20 kilometres away and was known to police.

The complaint says the accused filed a counter-case accusing Nasrin's expatriate son, Dhaka-based daughter Touhida Roksana Nupur and Nazrul of grabbing land.

Nasrin alleged the OC did not question it but told journalists it was under investigation.

She accused the OC of giving a journalist negative information about her family, raising concerns about her children's standing and safety.

She said he refused her general diary (GD) application on 24 October.

She gave the district SP photographs, videos and other evidence but received no remedy.

Denying the allegations, OC Sukomal Chandra Debnath told the Daily Sun that the land did not belong to Abu Hena Mostofa Zaman but to Abdur Rahim.

He said Abu Hena had leased the land for 10 years to cultivate an orchard. The lease expired last year and was subsequently extended for another year through a written agreement on stamp paper, he added.

The OC also rejected the allegation of delaying the case registration.

“We did not delay the process at all. Rather, we immediately took the matter into consideration and registered the case. Legal proceedings in this regard are underway,” he said.

Asked about the allegation that the prime accused had accompanied him during the site visit, the OC said there had been many people at the location and it was difficult to identify which side they belonged to.

“I visited the scene with Sharif, the defendant in the case and the security guard of that property. They did not raise any such allegation at the time,” he said.

Meanwhile, the OC said he was still unaware of the complaint filed by Nasrin Alam with the Police Headquarters.

Chapainawabganj Superintendent of Police (SP) Gautam Kumar Biswas also rejected the allegation that the OC had visited the scene with the prime accused.

“The information is false. I have looked into the matter and can assure you of that. The case was filed on the 23 October, while the site was visited the previous day, on the 22 October. So, before the case was filed, it was difficult to say who was an accused and who was not,” he said.

The SP also denied hearing about any delay in registering the case.

“I have not heard of anything like that. The case was registered as soon as the complainant came to the police station to file it,” he said.

He added that the investigation was underway.