A woman was detained on Thursday after attempting to surrender in court as a “proxy” for the primary accused in a Tk29 lakh cheque dishonour case.
The incident occurred at the court of Dhaka Joint Metropolitan Sessions Judge-4, where Judge Tania Sultana Lipi grew suspicious during a bail hearing. Monowara Begum had appeared before the court to surrender and seek bail, posing as the actual accused, Nasrin Shikder.
Upon realizing the deception, the judge ordered Monowara’s immediate detention, prompting the defense lawyers to flee the courtroom.
The court’s Peshkar, Ibrahim Khalil Opu, confirmed that Monowara Begum attempted to impersonate Nasrin Shikder during the proceedings. Public Prosecutor Md Kamruzzaman Sumon said the woman is currently in court custody and that preparations are underway to file a case against all parties involved in the fraud, including the original accused, the proxy, and the lawyers.
Court sources revealed that Monowara Begum works as a cleaner in various offices and homes. She was allegedly brought to the court to provide the proxy surrender by the primary accused’s lawyer, Md Hammad Emdad Hossain, who reportedly fled the scene once the judge noticed the anomaly.
When contacted by telephone, the lawyer claimed he was unaware of the matter and would need to investigate before commenting further.
Following her detention, Monowara pleaded that she was unaware that her actions constituted an offence. She claimed that a lawyer of Dhaka Judge Court had brought her to court and had no intention of committing any wrongdoing. She also noted that she has two young children.
The underlying case was filed on 23 March 2025, by the complainant, Nivedita Ahmed Tuli. According to the case details, Tuli and the accused, Nasrin, shared a close family relationship, leading Tuli to provide a total of Tk29 lakh for the purchase of a flat. In return, Nasrin issued a BRAC Bank cheque on 27 January of the previous year.
When the complainant attempted to cash the cheque at Sonali Bank, it was dishonoured due to “insufficient funds”. Consequently, the case was initiated in the Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
