A man from Cox’s Bazar has been released on interim bail after spending almost two months in custody following his arrest in a drugs inquiry that saw another suspect assume his identity and later be sentenced to death. The case has exposed significant questions about investigative procedures and identity verification by police.
Allegation of identity theft led to wrongful implication
Officials say the affair began when the District Detective Branch (DB) detained five people on 2 March 2020 during an operation that recovered a large shipment of yaba tablets in Cox’s Bazar Sadar. The haul has been reported as 190,000 tablets. One of those held, identified by police at the time as a Rohingya man called Ramzan, is said to have given the name and address of another man — a man later recorded by investigators as Sona Mia, aged 34, of Cox’s Bazar.
Court papers subsequently listed “Sona Mia” as the second accused. The entry recorded his father as the late Nazir Ahmed, and gave addresses in Kutubdia Para and Garjoniya in Ramu. According to the charge sheet, the investigating officer at the time, identified as DB Inspector Manas Barua, acknowledged they had not been able to verify whether that name and address were genuine.
Police doubts did not prevent long-term consequences
Despite recorded uncertainty about the identity of the second accused, the same officer sought to keep him in custody, telling the court there were concerns he might abscond if released on bail. There is no indication in the materials of further steps taken to conclusively establish the detainee’s true identity while he remained in detention.
On 13 June 2022 the man who had been claiming to be Sona Mia was released on bail and subsequently went into hiding, according to Cox’s Bazar Sadar Police Station Officer-in-Charge Sheikh Mohammad Ali. He did not reappear before the court. Later, on 25 November 2025, a court handed down sentences in the matter: two defendants — including the person then identified as Sona Mia — were given the death penalty; two others received life sentences; a fifth accused was acquitted.
- 2 March 2020 – Five people arrested with 190,000 yaba tablets.
- 13 June 2022 – The man claiming to be Sona Mia released on bail, later absconded.
- 25 November 2025 – Sentences handed down, including death penalties.
Nearly six months after those court determinations, on 24 June — having been held in custody for almost two months following his own arrest in the matter — the real Sona Mia was granted interim bail and walked out of Cox’s Bazar District Jail at around 11:00am. Reports state he broke down in tears on release.
“Every day I spent in jail felt like a year... The days passed in unbearable pain... If the police had simply made some inquiries, they could have found out the truth. But because of their negligence, my life became hell,” he told journalists after his release.
Questions for investigators and authorities
The case highlights how identity fraud can have life-or-death consequences where safeguards are incomplete. It raises several issues for criminal justice authorities and oversight bodies to consider, including:
- whether sufficient steps were taken at arrest and during investigation to confirm the identity of detainees;
- the adequacy of judicial and custodial safeguards when police report doubts about identity;
- mechanisms for remedy and accountability when an individual is wrongfully implicated in a capital case.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Seized drugs | 190,000 yaba tablets |
| Initial arrests | Five people |
| Dates | Arrest: 2 March 2020; Bail of imposter: 13 June 2022; Sentencing: 25 November 2025; Interim bail of real man: 24 June |
Those affected and independent observers will be watching whether authorities investigate the apparent procedural failings and take action against any officers found to have been negligent. The wrongfully implicated man has urged action against those he holds responsible.
The precise legal status of the person who was sentenced in his name, the outcome of any further inquiries into identity verification, and any disciplinary proceedings remain matters for the police and the courts. Reporting restrictions and ongoing legal processes mean further comment from investigators is awaited.
