Sinthia Islam: On the morning after journalists Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi were murdered in their West Rajabazar apartment, their family faced a question no family should have to ask: who had taken their lives, and why? The couple were killed on 11 February 2012. Their four-and-a-half-year-old son was at home. The next day, Runi’s brother filed a murder case. More than fourteen years later, the question remains unanswered.
On 5 November 2026, a Dhaka court postponed submission of the investigation report for the 131st time, setting 9 December as the next date. The Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI), leading the current probe, did not submit its findings. The number is difficult to absorb. But the concern is not the number alone; it is what repeated delay means for the family, for evidence and for public confidence in criminal justice.
The case has passed through several investigative hands. Initially handled by Sher-e-Bangla Nagar Police Station, it moved to the Detective Branch of Dhaka Metropolitan Police and later to the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). RAB reportedly received 111 extensions over more than twelve years without submitting the report. In September 2024, the High Court directed the Home Ministry to form a high-powered task force and remove RAB from the investigation. A four-member task force, led by the PBI chief, was formed the following month.
Changing the investigating agency was significant. It recognised that a case unresolved for so long required renewed scrutiny. Yet a new agency does not, by itself, solve the problem. Investigators must recover, examine and connect evidence that may have become harder to obtain with every passing year.
Recent developments show why the investigation cannot simply be dismissed as inactive. A progress report placed before the High Court in October 2026 described forensic work, digital records and outstanding tasks. DNA profiles from two unidentified men were reportedly found in material collected at the crime scene, but attempts to match them were unsuccessful. Of 300 CDs containing call records, 90 had been examined and 210 remained under review. The task force had also requested digital evidence held by the International Crimes Tribunal, which had not yet been handed over, according to the report.
These details matter. The investigation still involves difficult work: verifying old evidence, analysing digital records, questioning witnesses and testing leads. A murder investigation cannot be rushed merely to meet a date. A weak or incomplete charge sheet may damage the prospect of a fair trial and leave the actual perpetrators unidentified. The rights of anyone accused must also be protected; delay cannot justify speculation or treating an unverified lead as proof.
But complexity cannot become a permanent explanation. Evidence can deteriorate, memories fade, witnesses become harder to locate and records may be lost. Delay can weaken both prosecution and defence. It can leave a family in uncertainty while the public is repeatedly asked to wait. The duty is not simply to submit a report; it is to conduct a competent, impartial and evidence-based investigation within a reasonable time.
This is where the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, becomes relevant. Section 173 already requires an investigation to be completed “without unnecessary delay” and a police report to be forwarded to the Magistrate once it is complete. But it did not prescribe a fixed number of days. Section 173B, inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2026, now requires every investigation to be completed within 60 working days from receipt of information about the offence, subject to the extension procedure in the section.
The 60-day rule is not an order to file a report regardless of the evidence. Where there is reasonable cause for delay, the investigating officer must record reasons in the case diary, apply to the Magistrate for an extension with specific grounds and the additional time required, and send a copy to the supervising officer. If the extended period is also missed, written reasons must be given. The Magistrate may direct another officer to investigate or treat the delay as incompetence or misconduct, record it in the officer’s Annual Confidential Report and direct action under the relevant service rules.
There is, however, a legal question to handle carefully. The Sagar–Runi case began in 2012, while Section 173B took effect from 10 August 2025. It would be unsafe to declare that every earlier postponement automatically violated a provision that was not then in force. How its deadline should operate in an investigation already pending when it commenced deserves judicial clarification. Nor does Section 173B automatically terminate an investigation or acquit anyone because a deadline has passed. Its importance lies in requiring reasons, judicial scrutiny and possible institutional consequences.
The High Court continues to supervise the matter. On 27 October 2026, it granted the task force a further six months and fixed 29 April 2027 for the next order. The court was told that only 90 of the 300 CDs had been reviewed. This may provide time for forensic work, but time alone is not progress. The next report should explain what has been completed, what remains, why it remains outstanding and when each task will be finished.
The family of Sagar and Runi does not need another date without answers. The public does not need another announcement that the investigation is nearing completion. It needs a credible account of the evidence and a lawful decision on whether charges can be brought. Section 173B can help make delay accountable, but no statute can substitute for careful investigation, coordination and professional responsibility. Fourteen years after two journalists were killed at home, justice must mean more than keeping a case alive on a court calendar. It must mean bringing the truth, and those responsible, before the law.
Student: Bangladesh University of Professionals,
E-mail:- sinthia2054@gmail.com
