Irregularities, intimidation shadow probe

Allegations of irregularities and witness intimidation have cast a shadow over the official investigation into the death of Bangladesh Chhatra League activist Ishtiaq Ahmed Pranto while in Detective Branch (DB) custody in Faridpur, prompting questions over the impartiality of the inquiry.

The allegations have been brought against Additional Superintendent of Police Fatema Islam, who heads the three-member committee formed to investigate the custodial death. 

The claims include accusations of pressuring witnesses to sign pre-drafted statements, intimidating those who refused, and conducting much of the witness examination single-handedly despite the inquiry committee comprising three members. The allegations could not be independently verified.

According to the complaint, Pranto was detained by Faridpur DB police during an anti-narcotics drive in front of his home in Madhukhali on June 20 after police allegedly recovered 100 grams of cannabis from his possession. A case was subsequently filed under the Narcotics Control Act, 2018. Police also said he had been an accused in a narcotics case filed in 2016.

The complaint states that Pranto fell ill while in DB custody and was taken first to Faridpur General Hospital and later to Faridpur Medical College Hospital, where doctors declared him dead. A CT scan reportedly revealed signs of brain haemorrhage.

Following the incident, then Faridpur Superintendent of Police Mohammad Nazrul Islam Mollah rejected allegations of custodial torture, saying Pranto had died from a stroke caused by a brain haemorrhage. A three-member investigation committee headed by Additional SP Fatema Islam was later constituted to examine the circumstances surrounding the death.

According to the complaint, forensic analysis by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) found no evidence of poisoning, while a medical board at Faridpur Medical College Hospital concluded that the death resulted from a natural stroke caused by brain haemorrhage.

However, the complainants alleged that several witnesses were asked to sign statements prepared in advance and were threatened with criminal cases, including narcotics charges, if they refused. Statements attributed to multiple witnesses, including a Union Parishad member, claim they declined to sign documents because they did not accurately reflect their testimony.

Repeated attempts to obtain comments from Additional Superintendent of Police Fatema Islam were unsuccessful.