Md. Fuad Hasan :  Imagine a garment worker leaving a protest as clashes erupt nearby. Someone throws a brick; a police vehicle burns. The worker may have done neither. When a case names thousands of unidentified people, how will investigators distinguish the person who committed an offence from someone merely present?

That question followed Mirpur garment workers’ protests on 1 November 2026, demanding a minimum monthly wage of Tk 30,000. Violence was reported, including attacks on police, vandalism and a burning police vehicle. Such offences must be investigated. Yet the cases that followed deserve scrutiny. Dhaka Tribune reported four cases naming about 10,500 unidentified people, alongside 22 arrests. The Business Standard later reported five cases, more than 11,000 unidentified accused and 60 arrests. These were different reported snapshots; the accused figures are not arrest figures. Both reports raise the same question: how should police decide whom to arrest?

There is a difference between naming unidentified people in a case and arresting them. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, requires information about a cognizable offence to be recorded. At the start of an investigation, the identity of every person involved may be unknown. An FIR can provide a starting point, but it is not a finding of guilt. Naming unknown suspects is not inherently unlawful; the danger is treating a broad FIR as a substitute for the legal test for arrest.

That is where Section 54 becomes crucial. Replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2026, it governs warrantless arrest. For a cognizable offence punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment, police need a reasonable complaint, credible information or reasonable suspicion; reason to believe the particular person committed the offence; and satisfaction that arrest is necessary for a purpose listed in the section. Reasons must be recorded in writing. More serious cognizable offences carry a separate threshold: credible information and reason to believe that the person committed the offence.

A large number in an FIR cannot replace these legal grounds. Nor should a person's presence near a protest, employment in a garment factory or appearance in a crowd, without more, be treated as proof of involvement. CCTV, witnesses and digital material may identify perpetrators, but investigators must link the evidence to the individual. Police need not finish an investigation before arresting someone; they must meet the applicable statutory test.

The 2026 amendments make arrest more transparent. Sections 46A and 46B require officer identification, an arrest memorandum, family notification in relevant circumstances and official records. Section 46C requires information about arrested persons and alleged offences to be displayed at police stations and relevant headquarters, preferably digitally. Section 54A requires the grounds of a warrantless arrest to be communicated at the time. Under Section 67A, the Magistrate or Court must examine compliance and may direct action where arrest requirements have been negligently violated. These safeguards reinforce constitutional protections of lawful treatment, liberty and arrest under Articles 31–33.

There is a serious counterargument. The Penal Code recognises collective criminal liability in defined circumstances. Sections 141 and 142 address unlawful assembly and membership: a person must know the facts making an assembly unlawful and intentionally join or continue in it. Section 149 can make a member liable for an offence committed in pursuit of the assembly’s common object, or one members knew was likely. The prosecution need not prove that every member personally threw a stone or set a vehicle alight.

But collective liability is not collective suspicion. The prosecution must establish the unlawful assembly, the accused person's membership and the connection required by Section 149. Mere presence at a demonstration does not automatically prove membership. Article 37 protects peaceful, unarmed assembly, subject to reasonable legal restrictions for public order or public health. It does not shield violence; equally, violence by some does not make everyone present a criminal.

The Supreme Court's Appellate Division in Bangladesh v Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), 8 SCOB [2016] AD 1, stressed that suspicion-based arrest under the earlier Section 54 had to rest on definite facts and materials. The judgment predates the 2026 replacement of Section 54, so it should not be treated as interpreting the new text. Its warning against arbitrary discretion remains relevant.

The CrPC also offers a way to prevent unsupported accusations from lingering. Under Section 173A, a senior supervising officer may require an interim investigation report. If it shows insufficient evidence against an accused, the officer may direct that it be placed before a Magistrate. If satisfied, the Magistrate may discharge that person while the investigation continues against others. The person may still be named in the final report if sufficient and substantive evidence later emerges. This is not automatic discharge; it helps make investigations more precise.

The practical response is clear. Investigators should record the individual basis for each arrest: the alleged conduct, supporting material and applicable Section 54 ground. Magistrates should use Section 67A as meaningful scrutiny, not a formality. Supervising officers should use Section 173A to review weak cases. Police should publish anonymised updates distinguishing those named, identified, arrested, released and sent up in charge sheets.

Bangladesh must investigate arson, vandalism and attacks on police firmly. Workers must also be able to raise wage demands peacefully. These responsibilities are not opposites. Law enforcement is measured not by how many names enter a case file, but by whether investigators identify those against whom evidence exists. A case may begin with thousands of unknown accused. Justice requires individual accountability based on law and evidence, not the size of a crowd.

Law Student & Legal Researcher, Bangladesh University of Professionals