Published: 12:01 AM, 31 October 2026
When Remand Becomes Punishment Before Trial
Radifa Akter Ripa
The ability to hold a person while looking into a case is a part of the criminal justice system. It helps investigators talk to people who might be involved, gather proof and find out what really happened. When this ability is used without proper checks from the courts it can be a danger to a person’s freedom, to their dignity and to the rule of law. In Bangladesh the misuse of police remand has been a problem for a long time. People worry about torture while in custody, forced confessions and unfair detention. New changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which were made in 2026 give a chance to make protections against these problems.. The real challenge is not just what the law says but how well the law is put into action.
Remand is not meant to punish an accused person before a conviction. Under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when an investigation cannot be finished within the set time and the investigating officer has reason to think that the accusation is likely true the accused can be sent to a Magistrate. The Magistrate may then allow detention in line with the law. Police custody may sometimes be needed for an investigation but it must never turn into a tool to frighten, punish or force confessions. The idea of innocence remains very important: an accused person is not guilty simply because they have been taken into custody.
The worry is especially serious, in a country where reports of abuse have often been highlighted by courts. The colonial roots of the criminal procedure system are still relevant. Many parts of that system were made when the goal was mainly to keep control rather than to protect personal freedom. Even though Bangladesh has later adopted a constitution that focuses on rights, the ongoing misuse of investigative powers shows how hard it is to change old legal structures into systems that truly protect rights.
The Constitution of Bangladesh provides a foundation for protecting individuals against arbitrary detention and abuse. Article 31 guarantees protection of the law and treatment in accordance with law. Article 32 protects life and personal liberty except in accordance with law. Article 33 provides safeguards concerning arrest and detention including the right of an arrested person to consult and be defended by a practitioner of their choice subject to the constitutional framework. Article 35(4) protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against themselves while Article 35(5) prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.
These guarantees are not formal promises. They must guide every stage of an investigation, including arrest, interrogation and remand. A confession obtained through coercion undermines the integrity of the justice system. It may also divert an investigation away from evidence and towards the production of a statement that satisfies the investigating authority. Effective criminal justice therefore requires evidence-based investigation, access to legal assistance and independent judicial oversight.
I have watched Bangladesh courts repeatedly talk about arrest, detention and police remand. In Saifuzzaman v State (2004) 56 DLR 324 the High Court Division looked at safeguards for arrest and detention. In Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v Bangladesh (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) and in Bangladesh v BLAST (2017) 69 DLR (AD) judges decided that arbitrary arrest and misuse of remand must be checked. These decisions show a rule: investigative need cannot beat constitutional liberty. Detention power must follow law. Must be watched by judges.
International human rights rules back this idea. Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Political Rights (ICCPR) stops people from being arrested or detained in an arbitrary way. Article 9(3) says that people who are arrested for crimes must be taken quickly to a judge or, to another officer who is allowed by law to use power. Article 7 says no torture and no cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 14(3)(g) says no one can be forced to say they are guilty or to testify against themselves. All these rules agree that an investigation must not lose dignity while it looks for a confession.
The Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act, 2013 creates a legal framework to fight torture and custodial deaths. The existence of this law shows that custodial abuse is not bad behaviour; custodial abuse can bring specific legal responsibility. Yet the protection offered by this law works only if complaints are investigated fairly, medical evidence is kept safe, responsible officials are held accountable and victims can get help.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2026 adds safeguards. A key change is Section 167(2) which caps the length of police custody for any case at fifteen days. This cap is not a pass for investigators to keep a person in police custody for fifteen days. Every request still must be judged by the law and the facts of the case. If more time is needed after the fifteen-day police custody limit the accused may be moved to custody following the legal rules. The difference is very important: police custody and judicial custody have aims and more time in custody must not become a free pass, for endless police questioning.
The amended Section 167(2A) also brings in a safeguard. Before handing an accused person over to police custody a Magistrate can order an examination. This pre-custody check is not mandatory. It is up, to the Magistrate’s discretion.. Once police custody ends the accused must be brought before the Magistrate without any unnecessary delay. If the Magistrate sees any injury or if the accused says they were tortured the Magistrate must order an examination. This must be done by an officer at the nearest government hospital. If the medical report confirms torture the Magistrate must act according to the law. These rules can help create a record of the accused person’s physical condition. They also make it easier to verify claims of torture in custody.
Another important safeguard comes from Section 167A. It deals with attempts to treat a person in detention in one case as if they were arrested in another. A Magistrate cannot approve such an arrest just because the police ask. The person must be brought before the Magistrate. The relevant diary entries must be shown. The person must also be allowed to speak and explain their side. The application must look solid and well-supported. The provision also handles cases of detention. If the Magistrate thinks the officer acted against the law action can be taken under Section 220 of the Penal Code. These steps aim to stop repeated or fake arrests from being used to extend detention. They help protect individuals from being held as necessary.
The 2026 reforms also tackle the issue of delayed investigations. Section 173A says that interim investigation reports must be made. Section 173B says that an investigation must finish within sixty working days from when the offence information was received unless a statutory procedure allows an extension. These rules matter because long and unexplained investigations can hurt liberty. A person should not stay stuck in the process forever just because an investigation has stopped. Fast investigation, clear reports and court oversight must go together with limits on police custody.
With these changes legislative reform by itself cannot stop custodial abuse. A statutory limit could be weakened if remand applications are always approved without review. Medical safeguards will not work if exams are delayed, shallow or poorly recorded. The chance to speak under Section 167A will be worth little if a person does not have help from a lawyer or cannot challenge the police account well. Likewise investigation deadlines will not help justice if extensions happen all the time or if delays have no impact.
For implementation Magistrates must examine the necessity and legal basis of each remand request. The Magistrates must not treat police applications as formalities. Medical examinations must be done independently. Documented properly. Accused persons must have the right to talk to their lawyers. When allegations of torture arise the accused persons deserve a impartial investigation. Police accountability mechanisms must work without favour or interference. Judicial and administrative authorities must watch for patterns of repeated remand requests, unexplained injuries and avoidable investigation delays.
Public awareness matters a lot. Families of detained persons must know how to get assistance and report suspected abuse. Legal aid services and human rights organizations can make sure that constitutional safeguards are not for those who can pay for private lawyers. At the level professional training must stress lawful interrogation, careful evidence collection and the rule that coercion is not a good investigative tool and is not a replacement for professional policing.
The purpose of the procedure is not just about making arrests or getting confessions. It is about finding the truth in a reliable way while making sure the rights of everyone are protected. The 2026 amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure bring changes. These changes help limit how long people can be held in police custody, detect abuse while in custody, stop the misuse of arrest procedures and cut down on delays in investigations.. These changes will only work if the new rules are applied the same way every time and without bias.
A constitutional state must be able to investigate crime without treating freedom as something that stands in the way of justice. Keeping someone in remand should remain a controlled step in the investigation process. It should never be used as a punishment before a trial. If the new legal protections are supported by medical checks, strong judicial supervision, access to lawyers and real accountability Bangladesh can make a big step forward. It can build a criminal justice system where public safety and personal freedom go together in conflict.
Radifa Akter Ripa studies Law
in Bangladesh University of
Professionals (BUP),
Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka.
