STATEMENT OF GRIEVANCES AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS

On Behalf of Lieutenant General Masud Uddin Chowdhury (Retd.)

Filed by: Tashnuva Masud, daughter

Date: May 19, 2026

Subject: Systematic illegal treatment, procedural violations, and harassment of Lt. Gen. Masud Uddin Chowdhury (Retd.) and his family since arrest on March 23, 2026

—

I. BACKGROUND

My father, Lieutenant General Masud Uddin Chowdhury (Retd.), aged 72, was arrested from our family home at Baridhara DOHS, Dhaka on March 23, 2026. Our family was present during the arrest. My mother even accompanied my father to the DB office. The arresting officers knew exactly who we were, how to contact us, and that we were right there. Despite this, since that date, he has been held in continuous custody — transferred between DB remand, medical facilities, DB office, CMM court, jail, ICT, and back to remand — without our family being notified of a single transfer or hearing.

What follows is a comprehensive account of the illegal actions, procedural violations, and deliberate harassment inflicted upon my father and our family.

—

II. VIOLATIONS DURING ARREST AND CUSTODY

A. No Family Notification

From the moment of his arrest on March 23, 2026, our family was not informed of:

Which specific case he was being arrested for — he has multiple cases, and at the time of arrest we did not know which case the arrest was based on

His location — we knew where he was being held but were not allowed any form of communication with him

Any subsequent transfer between custody locations

Every transfer — DB remand → medical → DB office → CMM court → jail → ICT → back to remand — was conducted without notification to us. We learned of each movement through informal channels, never through official procedure.

No Contact Allowed During Remand

During the entire time my father was in remand, our family was not allowed any contact with him whatsoever. Not a single phone call. Not a single meeting. His wife went and waited outside the DB office every day for the first few weeks after his arrest, hoping to see him or get any information. She was never granted access. She was never given an update.

Even in jail, where he is supposed to receive one phone call per week, his family was denied. When we asked why we hadn’t heard from him, the jailer informed us that someone else had used up his weekly call quota. His own allotted phone calls were taken by someone else. His family was not able to speak to him. This is either gross administrative negligence, or it is deliberate interference with his right to communicate with his family.

Hospital Admission Without Family Notification

On approximately April 13-14, 2026, my father fell so severely ill that he had to be admitted to Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH). He remained there for approximately two weeks. Our family was not informed. We were not told he was sick. We were not told he had been hospitalized. We were not contacted by any authority — police, court, jail, or hospital. We learned of this through informal channels, as with everything else.

A 72-year-old man in custody was hospitalized for two weeks and the family was not notified. There is no legal or moral justification for this.

This violates:

Article 33(1) of the Constitution of Bangladesh — right to be informed of grounds of arrest

BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) 55 DLR 363, High Court Directive #4 — police must inform relatives within one hour of arrest

Supreme Court Appellate Division order of May 24, 2016 — upheld all BLAST directives

ICCPR Article 9(2) — right to be promptly informed of charges (Bangladesh is a signatory)

B. Arbitrary Arrest and Retroactive Case Filing

My father was arrested first. Cases followed after. At least 11 cases have been filed against him (per police briefing reported in The Daily Star, March 24, 2026), spanning entirely different categories — human trafficking, murder, genocide, and his role in the 1/11 caretaker government. The sheer number and variety of cases filed after arrest demonstrates that the arrest itself was the predetermined outcome, with charges constructed retroactively to justify continued detention.

This violates:

BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) Directive #1 — law enforcers must not arrest anyone under Section 54 merely to put them into detention

Article 31 of the Constitution — right to protection of law

C. Complete Denial of Contact During Remand

My father was not allowed a single phone call or meeting with our family during the entire duration of his remands. His wife waited outside the DB office daily for the first few weeks — she was never given access or information.

This violates:

Article 33(1) of the Constitution — right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice

BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) Directive #5 — detainee shall be allowed to meet lawyers and relatives

ICCPR Article 14(3)(b) — right to communicate with counsel

ICCPR Article 17 — right to family life, no arbitrary interference with family

D. Hospitalization Without Family Notification

On approximately April 13-14, 2026, my father fell so severely ill in custody that he had to be admitted to Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH). He remained hospitalized for approximately two weeks. Our family was not informed by any authority — not police, not jail authorities, not the court, not the hospital. A 72-year-old man in state custody was hospitalized for two weeks and his family had to learn of it through informal channels.

E. Denial of Access to Lawyer

The rapid, unannounced transfers between custody locations have made it nearly impossible for legal counsel to track my father’s whereabouts or attend hearings. We have consistently learned of hearings after they have already taken place.

This violates:

Article 33(1) of the Constitution — right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice

BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) Directive #5 — detainee shall be allowed to meet lawyers and relatives

ICCPR Article 14(3)(b) — right to communicate with counsel

—

III. REMAND ABUSE AND CUSTODY AS PUNISHMENT

My father has been subjected to repeated remands across multiple cases, creating a conveyor belt of custody with no meaningful investigation in most cases. The known remands are:

| # | Date | Duration | Case Type |

|—|——|———-|———–|

| 1 | March 27, 2026 | 5 days | Human trafficking (first remand after arrest) |

| 2 | April 4, 2026 | 3 days | Continued remand; bail sought on age/illness — denied |

| 3 | April 7, 2026 | 4 days | Murder case — Delwar Hossain killing (July Uprising) |

| 4 | April 11, 2026 | 4 days | Another murder case (July Uprising) |

| 5 | ~April 27, 2026 | 3 days | Further remand |

| 6 | Recent | 1 day | Sent back to remand for 1 day — no investigative purpose |

The 1-day remand is particularly telling — it serves no investigative purpose whatsoever. It exists solely to extend custody. This is remand as punishment, not remand as investigation.

This violates:

Section 167, CrPC 1898 — remand is an exception, not the rule

BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) Directive #13 — maximum 3 days in exceptional cases only, after medical test reports

Multiple remands exceeded the 3-day guideline, and consecutive remands across different cases circumvent the purpose of judicial oversight

Failure to Provide Glass-Walled Interrogation Rooms

The BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) judgment (Directive #6) ordered that interrogation must take place in a glass-walled room inside the prison, with relatives and lawyers able to observe from outside. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2016. Twenty-three years later, these rooms have never been constructed. Every interrogation of my father has taken place behind closed doors with zero transparency and zero possibility of oversight.

This constitutes ongoing contempt of a binding Supreme Court order.

—

IV. FABRICATION OF COURT RECORDS

Shown as পলাতক (Absconding) While in Police Custody

In Feni Case 361, the charge framing submitted on May 5, 2026 records my father as পলাতক (absconding). This is compounded by the fact that my father was not originally named in the এজাহার (FIR) — he was added by the police during the investigation. Despite this, and despite the fact that he had already been arrested on March 23, 2026, and was even placed on fresh remand on May 4, 2026 — one day before the chargesheet was filed — he was recorded as “absconding.”

On May 5, 2026, my father had been in continuous police custody for 43 days since his arrest. He was not absconding. He was not at large. He was physically in the custody of the very agencies that filed the chargesheet. He had been placed on fresh remand the day before. The charge framing itself proves that the entire chargesheet contains false information.

A chargesheet is a sworn document submitted to a court of law. Recording a person as “absconding” when the investigating agency is holding that same person in its own custody — and had just obtained fresh remand for him the day before — is:

Deception of the court — misleading the magistrate into believing the accused is a fugitive

Fabrication of official records — filing a false sworn document in a judicial proceeding

Deliberate and intentional — the investigating agency knew his exact location because they were the ones holding him, and had just secured his continued custody the previous day

Evidence that the entire chargesheet is unreliable — if the foundational claim about the accused’s status is false, the credibility of the entire document is in question

This is not an administrative error. This is document fraud submitted to a court of law.

—

V. COURTROOM MISCONDUCT AND DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING

Mob of Lawyers Prevented Submission of Medical Documents

On March 24, 2026, during the CMM court hearing, a mob of lawyers inside the courtroom did not allow my father’s lawyers to even submit his medical documents to the court. My father is 72 years old and a critical care patient. His legal team was physically prevented from presenting basic medical evidence that is essential for any bail or health-related petition.

This is a direct assault on the right to a fair hearing. When opposing lawyers use physical obstruction to prevent the submission of documents, the court cannot function as a court. This constitutes:

Obstruction of justice — preventing the court from receiving relevant evidence

Denial of the right to a fair hearing — guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution and ICCPR Article 14(1)

Contempt of court — lawyers obstructing proceedings undermines the authority and functioning of the judiciary itself

Irrelevant and Prejudicial Arguments in Court

During the same hearing, opposing lawyers used arguments such as “he is the mastermind behind 1/11” instead of focusing on the actual cases before the court, which involved either money laundering or July Uprising murder allegations. Bringing up the 1/11 caretaker government — which has no connection to the specific charges in the cases being heard — is both unprofessional and unlawful.

This kind of argument is designed to inflame the court and the public rather than address the merits of the case. It constitutes:

Prejudice of the proceedings — introducing irrelevant but politically charged allegations to bias the court

Professional misconduct — lawyers are officers of the court and must argue the case at hand, not conduct a political campaign

Violation of the right to a fair trial — the accused must be judged on the evidence of the specific charges, not on political narratives

Remand Reports Not Shared with Defense

None of the remand reports were shared with us until much later. It is unlawful to continue granting further remand without sufficient evidence being gathered and presented from the previous remands. The purpose of remand is to allow investigation — if the investigating officer cannot demonstrate what was obtained from the previous remand, there is no legal basis for granting another. Yet the DB and the CMM court continued granting remand after remand without requiring or sharing the results of previous remands.

This constitutes:

Violation of due process — the defense has a right to see and challenge remand reports before further remand is granted

Rubber-stamp judicial oversight — granting remand without reviewing the outcomes of previous remands turns the magistrate into a formality rather than a safeguard

Custody by default — when remand is granted without accountability for what was achieved, the default state becomes detention, not liberty

—

VI. HARASSMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS

A. Harassment of My Mother and Sister

After the investigation into my father’s wealth statement found nothing incriminating, investigating officers turned their attention to my mother and sister. They have been questioned about a plot of land allocated to my father by the Bangladesh Army. My mother and sister also have cases filed against them, and this questioning about a lawful army allocation — after finding nothing in the wealth statement itself — constitutes:

Harassment through collateral pressure — questioning family members who already have cases against them about an unrelated property adds another layer of intimidation

Shifting the goalposts — when no evidence was found against the accused, the investigation turned to his family instead

Intimidation — questioning the spouse and daughter about a military service benefit sends a clear message of pressure

This plot was allocated to my father as part of his service benefits during his military career. It is a standard allocation provided to military officers. There is no legitimate basis for investigating family members about this.

B. Confronting My Father with His Tax File While Hospitalized — No Tax Case Exists

Investigating officers took my father’s personal tax file and presented it to him while he was hospitalized at DMCH. My father does not have any tax-related case against him. There is no tax evasion case, no tax fraud allegation, and no legal basis for any investigating officer to examine his tax records in connection with the cases in which he is accused. While investigating agencies may have authority to access financial information, confronting a hospitalized 72-year-old detainee with his personal tax file — when no tax case exists — is:

Fishing expedition — using a hospital bed as an opportunity to search for anything that could be used against him, regardless of relevance to any case

Psychological pressure — showing a sick, elderly detainee his private documents while he is hospitalized is designed to intimidate and disorient

Exploitation of vulnerability — choosing to confront him while hospitalized, rather than through proper legal channels, demonstrates that the purpose was pressure, not investigation

C. Burning of Ancestral Home — Organized Political Attack, Not Public Unrest

During the July Uprising, many powerful people’s houses were burned down across Bangladesh. Our ancestral home in Feni was not touched. Our own community did not turn against us. But once BNP started gaining political ground, people from outside our area were hired to burn down our ancestral home.

This was not spontaneous public anger. This was not a consequence of the uprising. This was an organized, targeted attack — political reprisal carried out by hired outsiders, disguised as popular unrest. The timing makes this clear: our home survived the actual uprising. It was only when the political winds shifted that it was destroyed.

These actions confirm what the pattern already suggested: the investigation is not focused on any specific allegation. It is a broad, exploratory search for anything that can be used to justify continued detention — after the original investigation found nothing.

—

VII. MEDICAL NEGLECT

My father is 72 years old with health conditions that require ongoing medical attention. Despite this:

Bail has been denied at every hearing on the grounds that he is a “flight risk” — despite the fact that he had been living in his own home the entire time before arrest and was not attempting to flee

The defense has repeatedly raised his age and illness — ignored every time

Medical evaluation appears to be a procedural formality, not genuine healthcare

The transfer cycle (remand → medical → back to remand) suggests medical facilities are being used as transit points rather than for actual medical care

This violates:

BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) Directive #7 — detainee must be examined by a doctor before AND after remand

BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) Directive #8 — if a detainee alleges torture, the magistrate must form a medical board

Bangladesh Jail Code — prisoners entitled to medical care

—

VIII. ICT PROCEEDINGS AS CUSTODY EXTENSION

After the murder case remands, the prosecution petitioned International Crimes Tribunal-2 to show my father as “arrested” for genocide during the July Uprising. This was filed while he was already in custody on other charges.

My father was then transferred: jail → ICT → back to remand (1 day). This circular transfer serves no investigative purpose. It is a mechanism to launder continued detention through different jurisdictions, ensuring there is always a legal basis to hold him regardless of the merits of any individual case.

Using ICT jurisdiction as a custody extension tool undermines the tribunal’s mandate and constitutes abuse of process.

Custody Transfers as Mental and Physical Harassment

Even when my father was being taken to jail, he was not taken directly. Instead, he was transferred from place to place — DB office to medical, medical back to DB, DB to CMM court, CMM to jail, jail to ICT, ICT back to remand. Each transfer means a new holding cell, new interrogators, new uncertainty, no rest, no stability.

These transfers serve no procedural or investigative purpose. Jail could have been a single transfer from court. Instead, each movement is an additional period of physical discomfort and psychological torment — new environment, new guards, new questions, never knowing where he will be taken next or when it will end.

Furthermore, my father is handcuffed for every court hearing. He is a 72-year-old man already in state custody, surrounded by police at all times. He is a political prisoner with no realistic possibility of flight. Handcuffing him in these circumstances serves no security purpose — it is designed to humiliate and degrade. It is a visual display of his subjugation, not a security measure.

He is also transported in non-AC metal vans in extreme heat. Dhaka in May reaches temperatures of 35°C and above, with high humidity. A 72-year-old man with health conditions — a critical care patient — is being moved in metal boxes with no air conditioning, no ventilation relief, in sweltering conditions. This is not a logistical constraint. This is a choice. The state has the resources to transport detainees in humane conditions. Choosing metal vans without AC in this heat, for an elderly man who has already been hospitalized, is an additional layer of physical punishment disguised as routine procedure.

For a 72-year-old man with health conditions, this is not due process. This is mental and physical harassment disguised as procedure.

This constitutes:

Cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment — prohibited under ICCPR Article 7

Abuse of process — custody transfers used punitively rather than procedurally

Violation of Article 32 of the Constitution — right to life and personal liberty includes dignity in custody

Unnecessary and degrading restraint — handcuffing a detained, elderly political prisoner with no flight risk is humiliation, not security

Cruel transport conditions — moving a 72-year-old critical care patient in non-AC metal vans in extreme heat is physical punishment, not logistics

—

IX. ACC CLEARING LETTER IRREGULARITY

A DUDAK/ACC clearing letter was previously issued regarding my father. However, this letter bears no official seal and no date — it is merely on letterhead, signed by a Deputy Director. Either this letter was improperly issued at the time (lacking required formalities), or it is being improperly disregarded now. Either way, due process has been abused.

—

X. FREEZING OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS SINCE AUGUST 2024

All bank accounts belonging to my father, my mother, and my sister have been frozen since August 2024. This was done months before my father’s arrest in March 2026. The freezing of family members’ accounts — my mother and sister — who have not been convicted of any offense, effectively denies them access to their own funds for basic living expenses. This constitutes:

Collective punishment — freezing accounts of family members who have not been found guilty of any crime

Financial strangulation — denying a family access to their own money for over 9 months prevents them from mounting an effective legal defense, seeking medical care, and maintaining basic living standards

Presumption of guilt — freezing accounts before arrest, before trial, and before any finding of wrongdoing treats the family as guilty until proven innocent

This violates:

Article 31 of the Constitution — right to protection of law

Article 27 of the Constitution — equality before law

ICCPR Article 17 — no arbitrary interference with family and property

—

XI. SEIZURE OF RENT FROM DOHS RESIDENCE

On May 19, 2026, the Anti-Corruption Commission issued a formal notice to our tenants regarding the seizure of rent from the Baridhara DOHS residence. We received no prior notice from the High Court. Our tenants were directly approached and instructed to redirect rent payments, without the family being informed through any legal channel.

This constitutes:

Seizure of family income without due process — redirecting rent without court notice to the property owners denies them the right to be heard

Financial strangulation escalating — after freezing all bank accounts since August 2024, now seizing rental income as well ensures the family has no means of survival or legal defense

End-run around the property owners — contacting tenants directly rather than the owners suggests a deliberate attempt to bypass legal procedure

—

XII. SUMMARY OF ALL ILLEGAL ACTIONS

| # | Illegal Action | Legal Basis Violated |

|—|—————|———————|

| 1 | No family notification of which case arrest was based on or any custody transfer | Art. 33(1) Constitution; BLAST Directive #4; ICCPR Art. 9(2) |

| 2 | Arbitrary arrest with retroactive case filing | BLAST Directive #1; Art. 31 Constitution |

| 3 | Repeated remands across multiple cases, exceeding 3-day guideline | Section 167 CrPC; BLAST Directive #13 |

| 4 | 1-day remand with no investigative purpose | Section 167 CrPC; abuse of process |

| 5 | Zero contact allowed during remand — no phone calls, no meetings. His wife waited daily outside DB office, denied access | Art. 33(1); BLAST Directive #5; ICCPR Art. 14(3)(b), Art. 17 |

| 6 | Shown as পলাতক in Feni Case 361 chargesheet while in custody | Fabrication of court records; deception of the court |

| 7 | No glass-walled interrogation rooms (23 years after court order) | BLAST Directive #6; SC order May 24, 2016 |

| 8 | Medical neglect — hospitalized at DMCH for 2 weeks, family not informed | BLAST Directives #7, #8; Jail Code; Art. 32 Constitution |

| 9 | Bail denied on grounds of “flight risk” despite living in his own home the entire time | Art. 31, 33 Constitution |

| 10 | Case stacking — 11+ cases to ensure perpetual detention | Art. 27, 31 Constitution; abuse of process |

| 11 | ICT used as custody extension mechanism | Abuse of process |

| 12 | Harassment of mother and sister about army-allocated plot; both have cases filed against them as well | Harassment; collateral pressure on family with existing cases |

| 13 | Tax file confrontation while hospitalized despite no tax case | Fishing expedition; exploitation of vulnerability; intimidation |

| 14 | ACC clearing letter irregularity — no seal, no date | Due process violation |

| 15 | No medical board formed despite grounds for custodial abuse allegations | BLAST Directive #8 |

| 16 | All bank accounts of father, mother, and sister frozen since August 2024 — before arrest, before trial, before any finding of wrongdoing | Art. 27, 31 Constitution; ICCPR Art. 17; collective punishment |

| 17 | Mob of lawyers blocked submission of medical documents at CMM court (March 24, 2026) | Art. 31 Constitution; ICCPR Art. 14(1); obstruction of justice; contempt of court |

| 18 | Opposing lawyers argued “mastermind of 1/11” in cases unrelated to 1/11 — irrelevant and prejudicial | Professional misconduct; right to fair trial; ICCPR Art. 14(1) |

| 19 | Remand reports not shared with defense; further remand granted without evidence from previous remands | Due process violation; rubber-stamp judicial oversight |

| 20 | ACC notice to tenants to seize DOHS rent (May 19, 2026) — no prior notice to family from High Court | Due process; Art. 31 Constitution; financial strangulation |

—

XIII. CONCLUSION

The pattern is clear and unmistakable. My father was arrested first and cases were built afterward. When investigations found nothing, the net was cast wider — to family members, to tax records, to any document that could be used to justify continued detention. When one remand ends, another case produces a fresh one. When all other avenues are exhausted, the ICT petition ensures continued custody. And when all else fails, he is simply recorded as “absconding” in a chargesheet — while sitting in a police cell.

Before his arrest, his family’s bank accounts were already frozen — ensuring that by the time he was taken into custody, the family was financially crippled and unable to mount an effective defense. This is not coincidence. This is a coordinated campaign.

Every violation documented above is a violation of Bangladesh’s own laws, its own Constitution, and its own binding Supreme Court directives. This is not a matter of interpretation. The BLAST v. Bangladesh judgment has been the law of the land since 2003. The Supreme Court affirmed it in 2016. The government has simply refused to comply.

I am submitting this statement to bring these violations to the attention of the court, human rights organizations, diplomatic missions, and any authority with the power to ensure that the rule of law applies equally — even to those the state wishes to punish.

—

Tashnuva Masud

Daughter of Lt. Gen. Masud Uddin Chowdhury (Retd.)

May 19, 2026

Arlington, Texas, USA