Judicial Action Follows Forced Showroom Closure

The abrupt closure of the Nabin Fashion Punjabi showroom in Dhaka’s Mogbazar has sparked swift judicial scrutiny, compelling the Officer-in-Charge (OC) of Hatirjheel Police Station to provide an explanation for the police’s role—or lack thereof—during the incident.

On Wednesday, 25 March 2026, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Court, led by Judge Mohammad Mostafizur Rahman, acted suo motu under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code in his capacity as Justice of the Peace. The court’s directive follows media coverage documenting the unexpected intervention at the Bishal Centre market, where a group of individuals, reportedly in the presence of law enforcement officers, entered the Nabin Fashion outlet and ordered its immediate closure. Eyewitnesses described some participants as displaying intimidating behaviour, raising concerns over public safety.

The court expressed deep concern regarding the apparent inaction of police officers who were at the scene during the forced closure. “The police’s apparent indifference could instil fear among the public and undermine confidence in law enforcement,” the magistrate observed. The order emphasised that such conduct may constitute a breach of professional standards and legal obligations.

Consequently, Golam Mortuza, OC of Hatirjheel Police Station, has been instructed to appear before the CMM Court within three days and submit a written explanation addressing why the alleged lack of professional conduct should not be deemed illegal.

In a further measure to protect business operations and uphold legal accountability, the court ordered the Nabin Fashion showroom to reopen within 24 hours under police supervision. The court also directed that a detailed list of all individuals involved in the closure be submitted promptly.

Incident Overview

The episode has drawn significant attention across legal and business circles, underscoring the delicate balance between law enforcement responsibilities and private enterprise rights. Legal experts note that the court’s rapid intervention signals a commitment to safeguarding the rule of law, ensuring that arbitrary actions do not intimidate citizens or disrupt commerce.

This development serves as a pointed reminder to law enforcement agencies regarding accountability and professional duty. Judicial authorities have reinforced that negligence or passive complicity in public duties can attract scrutiny and legal consequences, thereby reaffirming the judiciary’s role in maintaining lawful governance and protecting business operations from unlawful interference.

If you want, I can also create an even more detailed version with historical context on police-business