Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Government of peoples republic of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Chuadanga-Versus-Mst. Shahana Hoque and another
Discharged
2
Md. Shah Alam Miah and others ... Plaintiffs-Appellants Versus Shona Miah and others ... Defendants-Respondents
Allowed
3
Rasheq Rahman... Plaintiff-Appellant -Versus- The Farmers Bank limited and others
Dismissed with cost
4
Md. Azizur Rahman and others-vs-Government of Bangladesh and others
Disposed of with observations.
5
Goljar and others …. Plaintiff-petitioners -Versus- Mina Akter and others .... Opposite parties
Absolute
6
Md. Nizam Uddin and another … Defendants-appellants - Versus - Zannatul Ferdosi … Plaintiff-respondent No.1 Uttara Bank Ltd., Bonorupa Branch, Kotowali, Rangamati Parbotto Zilla, represented by its Manager. ... Defendant-respondent No.2
7
Md. Nijam Uddin Akand Versus Md. Altaf Hossain and others
Rule Absolute
8
Mrs. Sahana Begum Versus Mrs. Akbari Ahmad Tandra and another
Rule Discharged
9
The State ....………….. Petitioner - Vs - Md. Shakil and another ...…. Condemned-Prisoners
10
Nuruzzaman Patwary-Versus-Siddiquar Rahman @ Siddique Mia and others
Rule Disposed of on Compromised
11
Mst. Bul Bul Begum and others
Rule Discharged
12
Abdul Awal being dead his heirs:- 1(a) Rokeya Begum and others-vs-Md. Abdul Karim Fakir and others
Discharged
13
Md. Sanowar Hossain-vs-Md. Zia and others
Discharged
14
Latifa Akter Shiuli -Vs- Daulatpur College (day and night), Khulna represented by the President of the Managing Committee and others
Rule Discharged
15
Mst. Asma Begum -Vs- Nurnnahar and others
Rule discharged as being infructuous
16
Md. Ahsan Ali-vs-The State and another
Allowed-in-part (Disposed of)
17
Md. Humayon Islam-vs- The State and another
Allowed-in-part (Disposed of)
18
Md. Ahsan Ali-vs-The State and another
19
Mohammad Rafiq and others Vs- Md. Abdul Motalib and others
Disposed of with above observation and direction
20
Nur Islam Mir and others-vs-A. Hamed and others
Absolute
21
Md. Shawkat Jaman Bachu Vs- Md. Bachu Fakir
22
Mowlana Abdul Khalik and others-Vs-Mohammad Anwar Miah and others
23
Monmotha Bairagi and others-vs-Government of Bangladesh and others
Disposed of
24
Md. Khalekuzzaman-vs-Mst. Mahamuda Beum
25
Most. Roksana Parvin Mili and others-vs-Khondakar Mohammad Shohidulla and another
26
Md. Zahirul Islam-vs-Md. Sohrab Uddin and others
27
Khandaker Abdus Sabur-Vs-Jamsher Ali and others
28
Sumaiya Tanvir @ Ayesha Panni and others- Versus- The State and another
29
Md. Abdul Latif Bhuiyan- Versus- The State and another
30
Md. Habibur Rahman and others-Versus-The State
31
Abul Hasan- Versus-Keramot Mollah and others
32
Shantanu Barua and others-Versus-The State and another
33
Kulsum Bibi- Versus- Abdul Kader Munshi and others
34
Jahir Ahmed-Versus- Nurul Islam and others
35
Sayeda Nurun Nahar Lucky and others-Versus- Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Brahmanbaria and others
36
Md. Quamruzzaman Talukdar-Versus-Md. Motiur Rahman and others
37
Sree Sudhir Chandra Sarker and others -Versus- Sree Prodip Chandra Sen and others
38
Md. Mahmudul Haque Bhuiyan- Versus- Jesmin Akther Beauty
39
Md. Ferdous Alom -Versus- Mosammat Akhinoor Begum
40
Md. Shafiqur Rahman and others-Versus-Ali Akbar and others
41
Md. Habibur Rahman Liton- Versus- Md. Anisur Rahman Badal
42
Ismat Ara Begum-Vs-Mahmuda Islam and others
43
Sayed Md.Nurul Islam Miazi and others-Vs- Tajol Islam and another
44
The State-Versus- Washim Akter @ Tarek Hossain @ Tarek @ Marfat Ali and others
45
A.K.M Asiful Haque Vs. Secretary, Law and Justice and Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others
The words “public trial” denote public access to the court proceedings. In other words, public trial reflects “open justice” and any trial that grants access to the court or the venue at which court proceedings would take place will be regarded as “public trial”.

Article 35(3) of the Constitution of the people’s republic of Bangladesh mandates that the criminal proceeding of a court or tribunal shall be held in public. Public means, for the use of everyone without discrimination. Anything, gathering or audience which is not private is public. Obviously, a Judge’s Chamber is not a court hall to which the public will normally have any right of access. Courtrooms are considered as public place as opposed to the Judge’s Chambers for the simple reason that the Judicial Officers, the parties and their Counsels and any interested member of the public has unrestricted ‘access’ to it. With all due respect, if the Judge granted unrestricted access to his chamber to the parties and their Counsels and any interested member of the public, the chamber would move from a ‘private’ place to a ‘public place’. Same conditions when available in a remote hearing i.e access being granted to and available to Judicial Officers, the parties and their Counsels and any interested member of the public will make the venue of such remote/virtual hearing be it zoom, skype, whatsApp etc. a public place in line with the provisions of Article 35(3) of the Constitution. It is our opinion, therefore, that the apprehension whether remote hearings are in conformity with the constitutional requirement that the proceeding be in public, the answer would be that the Constitution did not say that such proceedings must be in a physical structure called a Courtroom. Once the proceeding in a remote/Virtual hearing through video conferencing is made accessible to everyone involved and any interested member of the public, then the condition as provided by Article 35(3) would be complied with.
46
Uthpal Kumar Roy and three others Vs. Meghnad Shaha and another
The tribunal shall not take cognizance or frame charge of an offence punishable under section 11 (Ga) or 11(Ga)/30 of the Ain, 2000 against an accused without having a medical examination certificate from Government Hospital or any private Hospital, recognized by the Government for that purpose in view of the provision under section 32 of the said Ain in support of simple hurt of the victim wife.
47
Syeda Hamza- Vs- The State
48
Zahanara Begum-Vs- The State and another
49
Md. Anwar Hossain-Vs-the State
50
মোঃ নাজমুল হুদা ওরফে নাজমুর হুদা বনাম রাষ্ট্র ও অন্য
বিজ্ঞ দায়রা জজ, নড়াইল ফৌজদারী কার্যবিধির ২৬৫সি ধারার দরখাস্তটি নিষ্পত্তির সময়ে মামলার এজাহার, অভিযোগপত্র, সাক্ষীদের ফৌজদারী কার্যবিধির ধারা ১৬১ অনুসারে প্রদত্ত জবানবন্দীসমূহ, সুরতহাল ও ময়না তদন্ত প্রতিবেদন অর্থ্যাৎ মামলার নথি ও তদ্সঙ্গে দাখিলকৃত কাগজাদি আদৌ বিবেচনায় না নিয়ে শুধুমাত্র আসামী পক্ষের আত্মসমর্থনের কাগজাদি/বক্তব্য এবং পেশাগত অবস্থান বিবেচনায় নিয়ে প্রতিপক্ষ নং-২ কে মামলা হতে অব্যাহতি দেয়ার বিষয়টি আমাদের কাছে শুধু বিষ্ময়করই মনে হয়নি বরং বিজ্ঞ দায়রা জজের দায়রা মামলা পরিচালনার যোগ্যতা এবং ফৌজদারী আইন সম্পর্কে তাঁর জ্ঞান ও ধারনা সম্পর্কে যুক্তিসংগত সন্দেহের (reasonable suspicion) সৃষ্টি করেছে।