Questions Cloud Drug Case After Custodial Death

Serious questions have emerged over the credibility of a narcotics case filed against a student activist who died while in the custody of Bangladesh’s Detective Branch (DB) police in Faridpur, after multiple inconsistencies were identified in the First Information Report (FIR), witness statements and video footage of the arrest.

The case centres on 28-year-old Mirza Ishtiaq Ahmed, a Bangladesh Chhatra League activist, who died in hospital on 21 June after being detained by DB police the previous day. On the morning of his death, a case was registered against him under the Narcotics Control Act at Madhukhali Police Station, alleging that he had been arrested with 100 grams of cannabis.

Since then, several aspects of the police account have come under scrutiny. Among the most striking discrepancies is the FIR’s assertion that cannabis was recovered from the “right pocket of his trousers”, despite video footage and eyewitness accounts indicating that Ishtiaq was wearing a lungi and a shirt, not trousers, when he was detained.

According to the FIR, filed by Faridpur DB Sub-Inspector Md Ahaduzzaman on 21 June, a DB team carried out an operation at 2:10 am on 20 June after receiving confidential information. The complaint states that Ishtiaq attempted to flee upon noticing the officers but was apprehended shortly afterwards.

The document further claims that, in the presence of three witnesses—businessman Binoy Kumar Saha, Alamgir Hossain and DB Assistant Sub-Inspector Md Hajikul Islam—Ishtiaq admitted he was carrying cannabis and voluntarily produced a polythene packet containing 100 grams of the substance from the right pocket of his trousers before handing it over to the police.

That version of events appears to conflict with widely circulated video footage recorded during the arrest.

The footage shows Ishtiaq being detained outside his home in the West Gondardia area under Madhukhali Municipality at around 5:00 pm on 20 June, rather than during the early hours of the morning as described in the FIR. He can be seen wearing a lungi and carrying a laptop bag over his shoulder while officers search him.

The video also captures police officers slapping Ishtiaq during the search. At one point, an object is noticed lying some distance away from where he was standing, prompting one officer to say, “Here is a packet.” The footage has raised questions over whether the alleged narcotics were recovered from Ishtiaq’s possession in the manner described in the official complaint.

Additional inconsistencies have emerged from the statements of two civilian witnesses named in the case.

Alamgir Hossain told journalists that he was not present at the location cited in the FIR. He said that at around 7:30 pm on 20 June he had been standing outside the shop of fellow witness Binoy Kumar Saha in Morich Market when police officers arrived on two or three motorcycles. According to Alamgir, officers recorded his identity, home address and mobile phone number. He later discovered that he had been listed as a witness in the narcotics case without his prior knowledge.

The family of the second witness has also challenged the official account.

When contacted by reporters, Binoy Kumar Saha’s son, Bandhan Saha, said his father had been inside their shop in Morich Market, approximately 100 metres from the place where Ishtiaq was detained. He alleged that police later approached his father and asked him to serve as a witness. According to Bandhan, his father was initially unwilling to sign the relevant documents but was eventually compelled to do so.

Questions have also been raised over the handling of the alleged narcotics.

The FIR states that five grams of the recovered substance were set aside for laboratory analysis, while the remaining quantity was preserved as evidence. However, the case was registered under the Narcotics Control Act before any chemical examination had confirmed that the seized material was, in fact, cannabis.

Responding to concerns about the apparent inconsistencies, Madhukhali Police Station Officer-in-Charge Sukdeb Roy said the FIR had been prepared by the Detective Branch before being formally accepted by the police station at approximately 6:15 am on 21 June.

He said the police station had registered the case using the complaint submitted by the DB and that he had no authority to alter the wording or contents of the document. The officer also explained that police may initiate cases under the Narcotics Control Act if officers reasonably suspect a substance to be an illegal drug, with laboratory testing later determining whether the allegation can ultimately be substantiated.

As Ishtiaq died shortly after the case was filed, no charge sheet was submitted against the sole accused.

The discrepancies between the FIR, the available video footage and the accounts provided by listed witnesses have intensified calls for an independent and impartial investigation into both the circumstances surrounding Ishtiaq’s death and the accuracy of the criminal case filed against him. The incident has also renewed broader concerns over transparency, due process and accountability in cases involving deaths in police custody, with rights advocates and legal observers arguing that such allegations require careful scrutiny to maintain public confidence in the justice system.