Ishraque Hossain, who resigned from the cabinet amid controversy over an armed anti-drug operation, could face imprisonment for allegedly violating multiple conditions of his firearms licence.
Yet police have taken no action against the Dhaka-6 lawmaker, and the officer assigned to investigate the incident has declined to comment.
Videos published on Ishraque’s verified Facebook page have raised questions about whether he violated firearms licensing rules by brandishing a pistol during the operation and allowing another person to carry a rifle.
Under the Arms Act, a proven breach of licence conditions can carry a prison sentence of up to six months, while unauthorised possession of a firearm can attract a minimum of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The alleged violations could also provide grounds for suspending or cancelling Ishraque’s firearms licence and confiscation of his weapons.
Saying that Ishraque Hossain has violated conditions of his firearm licence, Former inspector general of police Baharul Alam told TIMES, “A person who holds a firearms licence cannot permit someone else to use the weapon at will. The authority that issued the licence can, if it wishes, serve him with a show-cause notice.”
Under clause (a) of the Firearms Licence Issuance, Renewal and Use Policy 2025, a licensed weapon may be carried or used only for self-defence. It cannot be used to intimidate or cause annoyance to others.
Section 21 of the Arms Act provides penalties for violating the conditions or rules of a valid firearms licence. A person convicted under the section may face up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk500 or both.
Ishraque, however, has defended carrying weapons during the anti-drug operation, claiming that police conducting an earlier operation at the same location had come under attack and faced gunfire.
He said he had taken firearms with him because of those earlier attacks.
However, the circulated video shows Ishraque and an associate getting out of a vehicle with pistols, pointing them ahead as they ran forward, racking the pistol slide to arm the weapon for firing while shouting, “Hey, stop, stop!”
No attack on Ishraque or his associates is visible in the footage.
“A licensed weapon cannot be aimed directly like this,” former police chief Baharul Alam said.
The video also shows a young man holding a rifle on the roof of a nearby building.
At the press conference announcing his resignation, Ishraque claimed that the rifle was also licensed.
He did not identify its model or provide further details about the licence.
When TIMES called Ishraque on his personal mobile number, he disconnected the call.
His public relations officer, Mahfuz Kabir Mukta, could not be reached either because his mobile phone was switched off.
Under the firearms licensing provisions cited in the report, an eligible individual may hold licences for two weapons simultaneously.
One may be a non-prohibited bore (NPB) pistol or revolver, while the other may be a shotgun or an NPB rifle.
The provisions do not permit the purchase of automatic or semi-automatic rifles, except those of .22 bore.
The rifle Ishraque described as licensed was seen in the hands of former Chhatra Dal leader Pavel Sikdar.
After images of Pavel holding the weapon circulated online, social media users claimed that it was an assault rifle of a type that could not be licensed to an individual.
However, Bangladesh Arms Dealers Association Joint Secretary Tanvir Ahmed disputed those claims after examining a photograph of the weapon.
“This is not any of the models being talked about on social media for the past two days,” he told TIMES.
Ripon Arms Company owner Mokarram Hossain Khan, whose business is based in Purana Paltan, subsequently identified the firearm as a .22-bore rifle.
“The weapon is a .22-bore rifle. It can legally be kept in Bangladesh with a licence,” he said.
However, even if the rifle was legally licensed, questions remain over whether it could lawfully be handed to another person.
The Arms Act, 1878 and the relevant firearms licensing rules provide penalties for transferring a weapon to an unauthorised person or allowing such a person to possess it.
Former IGP Baharul Alam said, “One person’s legitimate weapon used by another is prohibited under our law. Ishraque Hossain’s legitimate weapon is, therefore, illegitimate for the other person,” he told TIMES.
Under Section 19 of the Arms Act, the offence described carries a minimum sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
If the person seen carrying the rifle did not hold the necessary authorisation, he could face prosecution under that provision.
The alleged breaches could also lead to action against Ishraque’s firearms licence.
Section 18 of the Arms Act empowers a district magistrate to suspend or cancel a firearms licence if a weapon is misused, used to display force in a manner affecting public safety or, handled in violation of licensing conditions.
Under Section 24, the government may also confiscate a licensed weapon and its ammunition if the holder is found guilty of violating licence conditions.
Despite these provisions, there has been no reported police action against Ishraque.
The day after the incident, Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) Additional Commissioner (Detective Branch) Shafiqul Islam said the deputy commissioner of the DMP’s Wari Division had been assigned to investigate.
He said legal action would follow if the investigation established any violation of the law.
However, when TIMES contacted DMP Wari Division Deputy Commissioner Mallik Ahsan Uddin Sami to ask about the investigation’s progress, he disconnected the call.
He also did not respond to questions sent through WhatsApp.
Citizens for Good Governance (SHUJAN) Secretary Badiul Alam Majumdar warned that a failure to act could undermine public confidence in the justice system.
Asked whether police would take action despite the video evidence, he said, “If no action is taken in this incident, people’s trust in the rule of law and the justice system will erode.”
Saying valuable time has been lost, former police chief Baharul Alam said, “If he (Pavel Sikdar) had been detained with the weapon at that time, a case could have been filed against him under the Arms Act. But looking at pictures or videos afterwards, nothing much comes of it.”
