Published: 12:00 AM, 25 October 2026
When the Power to Arrest Becomes a Weapon
Md. Mehedi Hasan Rimon
Imagine, you were waiting for a bus late at night. A police van stopped in front of you and an officer said only one thing: “You are concerned in an offence. Get in.” You asked, “Which offence?” There was no answer, no warrant, and no written reason. Your family searched hospitals all night. By the next evening, you were still in custody and were not allowed to consult a lawyer. This story is imagined, but under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, nothing in it is impossible.
The power to arrest a person without a warrant is one of the most debated tools given to the police. In Bangladesh it is given under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. It empowers a police officer to arrest any citizen without any warrant or without the order of Magistrate, when specific conditions are met. Though this power is often needed for taking immediate actions in criminal matters, it has been widely misused and it causes serious harm to the fundamental rights of the citizens.
Section 54 of the CrPC empowers a police officer to arrest any person without warrant if the person (a) is concerned in a cognizable offence; (b) is the subject of a reasonable complaint; (c) is named in credible information received by the officer; or (d) is under reasonable suspicion of involvement in a cognizable offence. Courts have said that, though it is a discretionary power, but the police are not always required to arrest. In ‘Irappa v Ratanlal’ it was said that, “For a person having good characteristics, the police shall think carefully and instruct the complainant to a Magistrate instead of making an immediate arrest”. The courts have also said that this power must be "cautiously used" as it allows arrest with no prior judicial sanction.
Section 56 of the CrPC says, when a junior officer is ordered by the officer in charge to make an arrest in his absence, the arrested person shall know the reason for their arrest and shall be allowed to see the written order for the arrest, if asked. Under sections 60 and 61, the arrested person must be taken to a Magistrate without unnecessary delay and shall not be held in custody for more than 24 hours without a special order under section 167.
Section 54 of the CrPC shall be read alongside Part III of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Article 31 of the Constitution provides the right to be treated ‘in accordance with law’. Article 32 says, no one can be deprived of personal liberty except by law. Article 33 ensures that every arrested person has the right to know the grounds of their arrest and to consult a lawyer. When police arrest someone under section 54 without showing any reason and hold them in their custody for more than 24 hours, or deny them to consult their lawyer, they are breaching both the CrPC and the Constitution.
"Reasonable suspicion" and "credible information" are the main criteria for arresting someone under section 54. The Courts in Bangladesh have worked hard to prevent these terms from being misused as a blank cheque for the police. In BLAST v Bangladesh, the High Court Division said that the word "concerned" which describes the link between the person and an offence, is dangerously vague. It gives the police "unhindered power" to arrest anyone by simply saying that they are "concerned" in the offence. Where arrest is based on credible information, the police must disclose its nature and source and explain why they believed it. Where it is based on reasonable suspicion, the officer must record the specific reasons. A general statement that someone is "suspected" is not sufficient. In Saifuzzaman v State, the court said that "a mere allegation without anything else, cannot be the material for a proper judgment and shall not be taken as credible information." There must be a definite fact which points towards the accused. In Md Yusuf Ali v State, "reasonable suspicion" was described as a genuine and honest belief that an offence has been or is about to be committed not a licence for "wild-goose hunting."
One of the most serious issues regarding section 54 is the current practice of "remand," where the person arrested by police is returned to police custody for interrogation by the Magistrate. Although basically section 167 governs this, remand almost always follows an arrest under section 54. In BLAST Case the court directed that, "the system of taking an accused on remand for the purpose of interrogation and extortion of information by applying inhuman force is totally against the spirit and provisions of the Constitution". Repeated remand orders given only on police request and without any compelling reason, were declared unlawful. The court also said that arresting someone under section 54 with the purpose of detaining them under the Special Powers Act 1974, is unlawful. In 2016, the Appellate Division upheld the BLAST directives with some modifications and made them binding across all law enforcement agencies in Bangladesh and made prohibition on arbitrary arrest and unlawful remand.
In BLAST case, the court stated that "some amendments are needed in section 54 of the CrPC, so that the provisions of this section become consistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution." Such reforms should be made: Firstly, the unclear terms like "concerned" must be replaced with clear language requiring a specific link between the person and a specific offence. Secondly, police officers must record in writing at the time of arrest and their exact grounds. Thirdly, the rule of taking an arrested person before the magistrate within 24 hours must be maintained very strictly. Fourthly, courts shall have the power to award compensation for violations of fundamental rights caused by abuse of section 54. This principle was also established in Kalandiar Kabir v Bangladesh.
Arrest without warrant is a practical and legal necessity. Law enforcement agencies cannot function if every arrest needs prior court approval. But this necessity does not approve of any arbitrariness. The case law from Bangladesh's own courts tells a troubling story which is, section 54 is regularly used to arrest people without proper grounds and hold them in custody beyond legally approved limits, coercive interrogation is made, and deny them from consulting with their lawyer. Until section 54 is reformed to become consistent with Part III of the Constitution, it will remain closer to arbitrary power than to legal necessity.
Md. Mehedi Hasan Rimon belongs to Department of Law in Bangladesh
University of Professionals (BUP),
Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka.
