Charge framing order

This is the text of the order framing charges against the accused.

“Today is fixed for passing order on charge framing inclusive of the discharge petitions filed by the accuseds.

In the discharge petition of accused Zunaid Ahmed Palak has been stated

1. 1. that the allegation labelled against the accuseds are false.
   2. that the data center was not located in Bangladesh and, as such, he had no control over the facebook.
   3. that there was baseless propaganda against the petitioner regarding shutdown of the internet.
   4. that the accused petitioner had moral support to the demands of the protesting students.
   5. that the amendments made to the rules of procedure of the Tribunal have been antagonistic to the chastity of law.
   6. that the formal charge lacks propriety as being hastily filed.
   7. that the alleged acts do not fall within the ambit of crime against humanity.
   8. that the accused petitioner did not have command status and, as such, he was not responsible for any of the alleged acts.
   9. that the accused petitioner not at all contribute to the acts complained of.
   10. In the circumstances the accused petitioner deserves to be discharged.

The learned defence counsel made submissions accordingly. The learned state defence counsel on behalf of the accused Sajib Ahmed Wazed Joy submitted orally that the accused Sajib Ahmed Wazed Joy was not involved in the alleged occurrence in any manner. He was the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Information and Communication Technology, therefore, he had no control, command and authority to the Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology.

He further submits that the accused Sajib Ahmed Wazed Joy had been acting as per the order and instructions of Prime Minister. The prosecution did not submit any piece of evidence as to his involvement with the alleged occurrence, and, as such, he is liable to be discharged from the instant case.

On the other hand, the learned Chief Prosecutor urged that the contentions of the accused-petitioners cannot now be resolved without trial.

It transpires that the grounds raised by the defence, though seemingly cogent, cannot be settled at the moment without scrutiny of the evidences through trial and thereupon the discharge petitions are hereby rejected.

In consideration of the formal charge and the documents submitted therewith, the submissions of the learned Chief Prosecutor, the discharge petitions as well as the submissions of the learned defence counsels, we find that there are sufficient grounds to hold the trial of the alleged offences by framing charge and hence the following charges are framed against the accuseds.

[Charges are stated, see here]

You accused (in dock) Junaid Ahmed Palak Do you plead guilty or not?
Accused Junaid Ahmed Palak pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.

The accused Sajeeb Ahmed Wazed Joy has been absconding and, as such, the charges framed could not be read over and explained to him.

Let 18.02.2026 be fixed for the opening statement and examination of the prosecution witness. Prosecution is directed to submit copies of all the documents it relies upon, for the purpose of furnishing the same to the defence, if, meanwhile, the same are not supplied to the defence.

The defence shall be at liberty to submit a list of witnesses along with the documents, if any, which the defence intends to rely upon, as required under section 9(5) of the Act on or before the date fixed.

The accused in dock be sent back to custody with direction for his production on the next date fixed.”