Fahmida Aktar Fariha: What is the consequence when people accused of a serious crime leaves the country and refuses to face the law? Does crossing a national border mean escaping justice? For victims and their families, the departure of an accused person can turn the search for justice into a prolonged struggle. A fundamental question raises : should criminal proceedings stop simply because the accused is no longer in the country?
In our country, people accused of serious crimes often flee abroad or hide to avoid arrest. As a result, victims have to wait years for justice, and witnesses become difficult to find. But can a court proceed with a trial when the accused is absent?
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, addresses this issue through Section 339B, which deals with Trial in Absentia. According to Section 339B(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a court, satisfied that the accused has absconded or concealed himself from being arrested, and that there is no immediate prospect of his being arrested, directs him to show up within a stipulated period, and such an order is published in a widely-circulated
national daily newspaper in Bangla, then the court can hold the trial of the case in his absence if he fails to appear within the stipulated period. Section 339B(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to those cases where an accused has once attended the court or released on bail, but subsequently absconded or failed to attend.
This provision aims to prevent accused persons from stopping a criminal case simply by avoiding the court. However, it does not mean that every absent accused person can automatically be tried in their absence. This should be done in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.
This problem has received wide coverage due to the fact that former prime minister Sheikh Hasina has been out of Bangladesh since August 2024, and she was convicted in absentia by the International Crimes Tribunal in November 2025 over a crime against humanity. However, since the tribunal works according to a different legal system altogether, this case cannot be used to determine whether the provision in Section 339B of CrPC is applicable.
The problem is not limited to prominent political figures. When an accused person deliberately avoids court, victims and their families may have to wait longer for the case to be resolved. Thus, people may get frustrated, and they will stop trusting the justice system. But an absconded person should not be immediately recognized as guilty. It is necessary to analyze the situation and make sure that everything is done according to the law.

Another important issue is that it cannot be stated that conducting the process without the presence of the accused brings him back to the country. If the accused person resides in another country, then the government will have to conduct some legal proceedings to bring the accused back. Whether he can be extradited or not depends on certain laws and procedures. Thus, conducting the process and bringing the person back are two separate issues.
In all cases, the reason for criminal process is not just punishing the accused. It is to see to it that justice is served through the laws. It is right that victims have a fair chance to seek justice, but it is also important that the accused gets a fair trial too. Neither of these can be overlooked.
Justice cannot be halted simply because an accused has left the country. But it does not mean that the accused will also be exempted from following the process of a fair trial. An excellent justice system must see to it that there is accountability and justice served no matter what.

Writer: Law Student of Bangladesh University of professionals (BUP)