Should the trial of a case last for 24 years? What does it say about a judicial system if a case for alleged possession of drugs runs for a quarter of a century, without any hope in sight of its completion? In a country where the rule of law is respected in letter and spirit, this is incomprehensible.

Ahad Ali has been caught in the tangle of our intricate legal process since 1998 on charges of drug possession. This case encapsulates everything that is wrong with our legal system. Firstly, the circumstance of his arrest is dubious. A packet containing heroin was found nearby where he was sitting while waiting in Gabtoli for a bus home in 1998. He was not found in possession of it. Does proximity to a banned substance merit arrest? If so, was he the only one in that area? From his statement, it appears that he may have been framed, the intention of the police being to extort money from him. He failed to pay up the Tk 5000 they had demanded, and that has cost him 25 years of his precious life.

Secondly, should it take a quarter of a century to dispose of the case? We must ask: Why hasn't a single witness been produced after all these years? The case is so old that the current OC of Mirpur Thana knows nothing about it, and for all that he knows, and we can guess, the policemen involved in the arrest may well have retired or be dead by now. And what can be more pitiful than to find that the main witness, the sole one produced after 24 years, knows nothing about the case? So is the case with witness number two.

Admittedly, the case is serious, since possessing heroin over 25 grams is a penal offence which carries the maximum sentence of death. But we wonder why the court has not considered the repeated dismissal petition of the defendant. Is it the fault of the accused if the state fails to prepare the case and conduct it properly in court? We agree that trial judges go by the evidence produced. But if no witness is produced to corroborate the charges even after 24 years, should the ruling of the court not go in favour of the accused, since everyone is innocent unless proven guilty?

We believe this is a case the High Court should take cognizance of. The logic and even the legal position of giving fresh dates every time after a hearing, when no witness has been forthcoming for so long, has to be explained. Such miscarriage of justice should be righted, and be never repeated.

The High Court today granted anticipatory bail for eight weeks to actors Rafiath Rashid Mithila and Sabnam Faria in a case filed against them over fraud -- for their involvement with e-commerce platform Evaly.

The HC bench of Justice Jahangir Hossain Selim and Justice Md Atoar Rahman granted them bail following two separate petitions filed by them seeking anticipatory bail in the case.

The accused petitioners appeared before the bench for bail during hearing of the petitions.

On December 4, am aggrieved customer of Evaly -- Saad Sam Rahman -- filed the case with Dhanmondi Police Station against nine people including Evaly CEO Mohammad Rassel, Chairman Shamima Nasrin, musician Tahsan Khan, and actors Mithila and Faria.

The other accused in the case are: Akash, Arif, Taher and Md Abu Taish Kayes.

According to the case, celebrities Tahsan, Mithila and Faria were in different positions at Evaly. Because of their presence and their various promotional talks, Saad Sam invested Tk 3,18,000 in Evaly.

The plaintiff alleged that he was deceived because of the promotional talks of the celebrities.

Tahsan was the Goodwill Ambassador of Evaly, and Mithila was associated with Evaly as the face of the company's lifestyle products. Faria joined as Chief Public Relations Officer.

The High Court today expressed grave dissatisfaction as neither the investigation officers nor the Cyber Tribunal gave any explanation to it over the delay in concluding investigation into two cases filed against photojournalist Shafiqul Islam Kajol under the Digital Security Act.

The court sought the explanation three weeks back.

None of the investigation officers or the Cyber Tribunal has submitted any report to this court on whether the investigation officer has taken permission from the Cyber Tribunal to probe the cases 75 days after filing those, which is very "unfortunate", the HC bench of Justice M Enayetur Rahim and Justice Md Mostafizur Rahman noted.

Justice Enayetur Rahim said the investigation officers were asked to appear before the bench again with the explanation today (Tuesday).

But, the IOs did not appear, nor submitted the explanation before the court, the judge said during hearing two bail petitions filed by accused Kajol in connection with the cases.

The HC bench asked the IOs to appear before it on Thursday to give the explanation.

It also fixed Thursday for hearing the bail petitions and asked Deputy Attorney General Sarwar Hossain Bappi to communicate to the IOs so that they appear before the court on that day.

Lawyer Jyotirmoy Barua appeared for photojournalist Kajol during virtual hearing on the bail petitions today. 

On November 24, the same HC bench granted bail to Kajol in a case filed under the Digital Security Act.

However, Kajol could not be released from jail following the verdict as he is arrested in two other cases.

The same day, the bench also asked the investigation officers of the cases lodged against Kajol with Hazaribagh and Kamrangirchar police stations whether he has taken permission from the Cyber Tribunal to probe the cases after 75 days of filing the cases.

The investigation officers and the Cyber Tribunal have been ordered to submit separate reports to the HC by December 15 (Tuesday).

Two other cases under the Digital Security Act were filed against Kajol on March 10 and 11 with Hazaribagh and Kamrangirchar police stations.