Mst Sheuli Khatun: A society is not judged merely by the laws it enacts, but by how faithfully those laws protect the people who depend on them. In a constitutional democracy, the criminal justice system is expected to serve as a safeguard against arbitrary power, protect individual liberty and ensure that no person is deprived of justice through procedural abuse. Yet, in Bangladesh, a troubling question persists: do the rights guaranteed by law genuinely protect individuals in practice, or do they remain promises that become meaningful only on paper?

The gap between legal protection and lived experience is one of the most pressing concerns of criminal justice in Bangladesh. Although the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 establish important safeguards, the practical enforcement of those protections remains a significant challenge. The problem is not necessarily the absence of legal provisions; rather, it is the inconsistent application of existing safeguards, institutional weaknesses and the unequal ability of individuals to assert their rights.

When Arrest Becomes an Instrument of Power:

The power to arrest is an essential component of law enforcement. However, when exercised without sufficient justification or effective accountability, it can become a serious threat to personal liberty. Article 31 of the Constitution guarantees protection of the law, while Article 32 provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with law.Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers police officers to arrest without a warrant in specified circumstances. Such authority is necessary for effective policing, but it must never be interpreted as an unrestricted licence to interfere with individual freedom. An arrest should be based on lawful grounds, not personal hostility, suspicion without adequate foundation or pressure from influential interests.

The distinction between lawful authority and arbitrary exercise of power is fundamental. In Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v Bangladesh, the High Court Division issued important directions concerning arrest under Section 54 and remand under Section 167. The Appellate Division subsequently upheld the need for safeguards, reinforcing the principle that police powers must remain subject to constitutional limitations. These judicial interventions demonstrate that procedural safeguards are not technical formalities; they are essential protections against abuse of authority.

Remand: Investigation or Intimidation?

Perhaps one of the most sensitive issues in criminal proceedings is the use of police remand. Section 167 of the Code provides a procedure for situations where an investigation cannot be completed within the prescribed period of police detention. It requires the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate, who must exercise judicial control over further detention.The purpose of remand is to facilitate a lawful investigation, not to punish a person before guilt has been established. Nevertheless, concerns regarding coercive interrogation, pressure to obtain confessions and inadequate scrutiny of detention requests continue to raise questions about the practical effectiveness of these safeguards.

A confession obtained through fear, coercion or inducement cannot represent genuine justice. Article 35(5) of the Constitution expressly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The prohibition is not conditional upon the innocence or guilt of the person concerned. Every individual, regardless of the allegation against them, is entitled to humane treatment and protection from torture.

The responsibility therefore extends beyond law enforcement agencies. Magistrates must independently examine the grounds for detention and ensure that judicial authorisation does not become a routine administrative exercise.

Bail: Liberty Should Not Depend on Wealth

The principle of bail reflects a fundamental idea: an accused person should not ordinarily suffer unnecessary detention before conviction. Sections 496 and 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulate bail in bailable and non-bailable cases respectively.

In bailable offences, bail is generally a matter of right when the statutory conditions are fulfilled. In non-bailable offences, the court exercises judicial discretion within the limits prescribed by law. However, the practical experience of an accused person may differ considerably depending on financial capacity, access to legal representation and the ability to provide sureties.

For a financially privileged individual, securing legal assistance and satisfying bail requirements may be comparatively manageable. For a person living in poverty, even a favorable bail order may not immediately translate into freedom if the conditions imposed cannot realistically be fulfilled.

This creates a disturbing inequality: two individuals facing similar allegations may experience substantially different consequences because of their economic circumstances. Justice must not become a privilege available only to those who can afford it. Bail decisions should be guided by relevant legal considerations, including the circumstances of the case, the risk of absconding and the possibility of interference with evidence—not by prejudice or social status.

The Punishment of Waiting

The denial of justice does not always occur through an unlawful arrest or an improper detention order. Sometimes, it occurs through prolonged waiting.

Lengthy investigations, repeated adjournments, procedural inefficiencies and inadequate institutional resources can transform criminal proceedings into an exhausting experience for both accused persons and victims. For an accused person, prolonged proceedings may mean years of uncertainty, social stigma, financial hardship and restrictions on personal freedom. For victims delay may weaken evidence, discourage participation and deepen the sense that justice is inaccessible.

The constitutional guarantee of a speedy and fair trial must therefore be treated as a substantive component of justice, rather than an abstract legal aspiration. A justice system that eventually delivers a decision after unreasonable delay may still fail those whose rights it was designed to protect.

Rebuilding Public Confidence

The solution does not lie in weakening law enforcement or obstructing legitimate criminal investigations. Rather, it requires a justice system in which authority and accountability operate together.

First, arrests must be supported by lawful grounds and properly documented reasons. Second, applications for remand must receive meaningful judicial scrutiny. Third, access to legal representation and legal aid must be strengthened, particularly for economically disadvantaged individuals. Fourth, bail conditions should be reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of each case. Finally, investigation and trial processes must become more efficient without compromising fairness or due process.

Institutional accountability is equally important. Allegations of unlawful detention, custodial violence and procedural misconduct must be investigated independently and addressed through effective legal remedies. Without consequences for abuse, even the strongest statutory safeguards risk becoming ineffective.

The true measure of a legal system is not how powerful its institutions appear, but how effectively they protect those who stand most vulnerable before them. Arrest, detention, remand and bail are not merely procedural stages; they directly affect human dignity, freedom and the constitutional relationship between the individual and the State. Bangladesh does not simply need more declarations of legal rights; it needs institutions capable of translating those rights into everyday reality. The law must protect the accused without obstructing justice, empower law enforcement without legitimizing abuse, and ensure that poverty does not determine access to freedom. Ultimately, the credibility of justice depends not merely on what the law promises, but on what people actually experience when they seek its protection for the law to command public confidence, it must stand not only beside those who exercise power, but also beside those who are most vulnerable to it.

Student of Department of Law ; Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)