A Curious Case of Justice

It is now broadly accepted that Sadi Bin Shams was innocent. A young doctor who attempted to save a dying man should never have been charged with murder, let alone detained under Section 302. His release on bail was the correct outcome. But the path to that outcome tells a far more disturbing story -- one that reveals the current state of law and order in Bangladesh.

Dr. Sadi did not receive justice through ordinary legal processes. He received it through influence. What follows is not conjecture or ideology, but a sequence of observable facts -- each one exposing a fault line in the system.

Observation 1

Before lawyers, courts, or petitions entered the picture, Dr. Sadi’s hospital director rushed to the police station and spent hours attempting to negotiate his release. This was not a legal proceeding; it was persuasion. The attempt failed -- not because the law was applied rigorously, but because the police were unanswerable. Justice was neither granted nor denied on principle; it was simply withheld.

Observation 2

Early on, those involved concluded that bail was nearly impossible -- not because of the evidence, but because of the reach of a state-linked IT expert associated with the case. Bail was assessed not on merit, but on perceived power. This assumption went uncontested, which is itself an indictment of how normalized such thinking has become.

Observation 3

To counter that influence, the strategy shifted from legal argument to media visibility. Activists decided that only someone with sufficient public reach could offset institutional power. When justice requires amplification to function, law ceases to be the primary arena of resolution.

Observation 4

The victim’s family hesitated to come forward. People were afraid to share even a phone number, fearing police harassment. Fear -- not law -- became the governing force. When families believe that seeking legal remedy may worsen their situation, due process collapses at its foundation.

Observation 5

For a time, no one knew which police station Dr. Sadi was being held in. The family did not know. Others were afraid to ask. This is not a minor administrative lapse; it is a fundamental violation of legal norms. The right to know the place of detention is among the most basic safeguards against abuse.

Observation 6

As uncertainty deepened, political intermediaries were contacted -- not because they had jurisdiction, but because they had leverage. Once again, justice advanced not through institutions, but through access.

Observation 7

The case was escalated to senior figures within the National Citizens Party. Public live broadcasts followed. Formal discussion occurred. The speed of institutional response increased noticeably.

It is at this point that an uncomfortable political reality must be acknowledged. This sequence of events powerfully reinforces a growing public suspicion: that the National Citizens Party is perceived not as a neutral civic platform, but as a “King’s party” -- a formation whose leaders can pull strings within the state apparatus.

Whether this perception is fair or not is almost beside the point. What matters is that experience keeps confirming it. In a functioning democracy, political organizations may advocate -- but they do not unlock law enforcement responsiveness simply by entering the room. Here, however, proximity to this particular platform appeared to accelerate attention, coordination, and outcome.

That perception corrodes trust, not only in policing, but in political pluralism itself.

Observation 8

The breakthrough in locating Dr. Sadi did not come from police records or official notifications. It came from a social media post in a doctors’ forum. Only then did the correct police station become known. Information -- something that should be a right -- functioned as a privilege.

Observation 9

A public prosecutor reportedly gave private verbal assurances that the state would not oppose bail. Those assurances later evaporated. Prosecutors are not meant to negotiate outcomes informally. When prosecution appears fluid behind the scenes, justice begins to resemble bargaining rather than adjudication.

Observation 10

Efforts intensified to reach a highly influential -- but ethically controversial -- social media figure, on the belief that sufficient noise would force the state to act. This was not faith in the law; it was faith in spectacle. When governance responds more predictably to noise than to procedure, institutional credibility erodes.

Observation 11

Even obtaining a copy of the First Information Report required personal connections. The FIR -- arguably the backbone of any criminal case -- was not accessed through an administrative process but through knowing the right person. Law became privatized.

Observation 12

As the hearing approached, activists announced that they would blockade police headquarters if bail was denied. This was not rhetoric. It was escalation born of necessity. When justice requires the threat of institutional paralysis, the rule of law has already failed.

Observation 13

Finally, it became clear that senior figures from outside the justice system -- individuals with no formal jurisdiction over arrests or bail -- had also intervened. Pressure converged across culture, administration, and advisory roles until resistance became impractical. Bail followed.

None of this proves malice. But together, these observations prove something far more troubling: justice arrived only after influence accumulated. This reality sits uneasily beside repeated assurances from the Law Adviser Dr. Asif Nazrul that the executive branch does not influence judicial decisions. Formally, that may be true. But influence does not need to appear as a phone call to a judge. It operates upstream -- through police discretion, prosecutorial posture, information control, fear, and pressure.

Dr. Sadi was fortunate. He had colleagues, activists, professional bodies, media attention, and access. Most accused persons in Bangladesh do not. This is why a 75-year-old writer, journalist, and children’s author like Shahriar Kabir remains in jail on a false murder charge. Not because the evidence against him is stronger. But because he lacks friends in the right places.

That is the real horror.

If one clearly innocent doctor required thirteen layers of influence to secure bail, how many other innocent people are still inside -- unseen, unheard, and unrescued?

Omar Shehab is a theoretical quantum computer scientist at the IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, New York. He is also an alumnus of the Shahjalal University of Science and Technology.