Khabor Wala Desk
Published: 16th July 2026, 8:00 PM
Police investigations into the casualties of the July 2026 uprising have revealed severe inconsistencies and fraudulent fabrications across several murder cases in Dhaka. Final reports submitted by law enforcement agencies show that individuals listed as deceased are alive and working abroad, whilst certain complainants are entirely untraceable. In several instances, claims of deaths or injuries from gunfire have completely fallen apart under scrutiny, revealing that personal animosities, land disputes, and business rivalries were leveraged to falsely accuse innocent individuals who were hundreds of kilometres away at the time of the incidents.
Table of Contents
The wave of legal filings followed the intense civil unrest of July 2024, which began as a student-led quota reform movement and rapidly escalated into a mass uprising against the ruling Awami League administration. Severe clashes and casualties occurred at key entry points to the capital, including Jatrabari, Uttara, Bosila, and Rampura. The political crisis culminated on 5 August 2024, when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled to India, leading to the collapse of her government. Whilst a United Nations fact-finding mission estimated total casualties at around 1,400, official government gazettes placed the figure near 850.
Data from the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) Prosecution Department showed that 707 cases were filed across 50 police stations in the capital regarding the unrest, implicating 5,079 named suspects.
Jatrabari Police Station: Highest volume with 19 cases.
Paltan Model Police Station: 16 cases.
Hatirjheel and Bhatara Stations: 7 cases each.
Rampura Police Station: 5 cases.
Uttara (East and West), Airport, and Dakshinkhan Stations: 13 cases combined.
Out of these, 126 cases remain under active investigation, involving the ousted Prime Minister, former cabinet ministers, and senior Awami League officials. Investigators have completed inquiries into 19 cases and submitted final reports to the court. The findings are stark: three cases have been declared entirely malicious fabrications, whilst the remaining 16 suffer from severe factual contradictions, false identities, forged documents, and geographical impossibilities.
One of the most astonishing fabrications emerged from a murder case filed at Hatirjheel Police Station. The complainant, identified as Ismail, alleged that his cousin, 46-year-old Mo. Babu, was shot dead by police on 19 July 2024 on Ulon Road. The case implicated Sheikh Hasina, top Awami League figures, and senior police officials.
However, the final police report submitted on 26 October 2025 disproved the entire narrative. Investigating officer Sub-Inspector Russel Islam travelled to the address listed on the victim’s National ID card in Borurkandi village, Chandpur. Local inquiries revealed that “Babu” was completely unharmed. His real name is Mo. Shakil, and he has been residing securely in the Middle East. Reached via a messaging application, Shakil sent a voice message confirming his safety:
“I am not dead. If I had died, how could I have come to Saudi Arabia? The police have already spoken to me about this. I am currently working here as a labourer.”
Further inquiries revealed identity theft at the core of the prosecution. When police located the actual Ismail in Faridpur, Chandpur, he testified both to investigators and the court that he had never filed such a case. An unidentifiable syndicate had used his credentials and attached a forged death certificate to initiate proceedings. The Dhaka Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court has scheduled a hearing on this final report for 3 August.
A parallel investigation by the Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI) dismantled another high-profile case filed at Paltan Police Station. On 2 September 2024, Yasin Arafat alleged that a 24-year-old man named Parvez Ali was shot dead, and that he himself was shot and injured by senior Awami League politicians on Box Culvert Road.
PBI Sub-Inspector Md Masud Rana established that the alleged deceased person, Parvez Ali, did not exist. Furthermore, forensic teams discovered that the complainant had attempted to present an old, superficial scratch on his leg as a gunshot wound. Arafat failed to produce any medical certification, and his own father was entirely unaware of any such shooting incident.
Local inquiries in Arafat’s home village in Satkhira revealed a history of political shifting. Arafat, who currently works as a multimedia reporter for a private television channel in Dhaka, had previous links with the Awami League student wing before aligning with student rights organisations. Gabura Union Parishad Chairman G M Masudul Alam confirmed the police findings:
“No shooting incident occurred involving him. These claims are entirely fabricated. The police came to investigate and found absolutely no evidence.”
The investigation revealed that the case was driven by a domestic land dispute in Pabna. Arafat had used the unrest to indict two local truck drivers, Abdul Matin and his nephew Nazmul Hasan, who had never met the complainant. Call Detail Records (CDR) analyzed by the PBI proved the two accused men were in Pabna on the day of the alleged offence. The PBI submitted its final report on 11 December, branding the case completely fraudulent.
A third entirely fabricated murder case was investigated by Adabor Police Station and dismissed in a report filed on 30 November. The case claimed that a man named Ali Mia was shot dead on 19 July 2024 in Adabor during an attack by Awami League activists. The case was initiated by a complainant named Mo. Toha Khan.
Investigating officer Sub-Inspector Tarun Kumar stated that a thorough search failed to verify any of the claims. The mobile phone number provided in the initial statement was permanently disconnected, and the residential address provided in Adabor was false. Current occupants of the property confirmed that no one by the name of Toha Khan had ever resided there. The structural wording and suspect lists matched the patterns observed in the Hatirjheel and Paltan fabrications, indicating coordinated legal manipulation.
The rise of these coordinated, non-existent cases has drawn sharp criticism from senior legal analysts. Supreme Court Advocate Jyotirmoy Barua stated that the penal code provides clear remedies for such abuses of the judicial system:
“If it is judicially proven that a case is entirely fraudulent, provisions exist under Section 211 of the Penal Code to initiate criminal proceedings against the complainant. Initiating false criminal charges to cause injury to another person is a serious indictable offence.”
Barua observed that whilst historical precedents for punishing false complainants are infrequent, the scale of these fabrications warrants strict enforcement. He cautioned that whilst criminal cases are evaluated individually, a pattern of fraudulent filings can create a sceptical environment that risks undermining the legitimate cases of genuine victims seeking justice.
Addressing the issue of administrative accountability, Assistant AIG (Media) of Police Headquarters, A H M Shahadat Hossain, stated that standard operating procedures require legal action against individuals who wilfully mislead the police. He noted that law enforcement agencies will proceed according to the statutory framework unless specific policy directives are issued by the interim government regarding the management of these public cases.
Comments