BLAST vs Bangladesh
‘Section 54 Guidelines Case’ or ‘Rubel Killing Case’ or ‘Guidelines on Arrest and Remand Case’
Citation : 55 DLR (2003) 363
Jurisdiction : Bangladesh
Petitioner : Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Sammilito Samajik Andolon, and other individuals
Respondent : Bangladesh and others
Background :
For years, the people of Bangladesh witnessed ordinary citizens being arrested without explanation, and sometimes they never came back. These arrests were made under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC), which gave police the power to arrest people without a warrant on mere suspicion. Moreover, many were taken into police remand under Section 167, which often resulted in brutal torture. Such a victim was Rubel, who was arrested by the police under Section 54 without any formal charge, and days later, the dead body was returned to the family. This was not a unique case, as in 2002 alone, at least 38 custodial deaths were reported.
Facts :
Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Sammilito Samajik Andolon, and other individuals filed a writ petition (No. 3806 of 1998) under Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. The petitioners challenged the abusive exercise of power by the police under Section 54 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioners argued that these provisions were being misused, which often led to custodial torture and deaths. They claimed that this violates the fundamental rights under Articles 27, 31, 32, 33, and 35 of the Constitution. The petitioners also highlighted that the police frequently used Section 54 as a pretext for preventive detention under Section 3 of the Special Powers Act, 1974, bypassing any safeguard, stating several incidents along with the killing of Rubel.
Issues :
1. Whether the power of arrest under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is inconsistent with Articles 27, 31, 32, 33, and 35 of the Constitution.
2. Whether using Section 54 of the CrPC as a pretext for preventive detention under Section 3 of the Special Powers Act, 1974, is lawful.
3. Whether the magistrates have a duty to apply judicial discretion while granting remand under section 167 of the CrPC.
4. Whether victims of illegal arrest, detention, and custodial torture are entitled to compensation.
Decisions :
Upon full hearing, the High Court gave a verdict on April 7, 2003, observing that Sections 54 and 167 of the CrPC were not fully constitutional as they are inconsistent with Articles 27, 31, 32, 33, and 35. The court laid down a comprehensive set of recommendations, including the amendment of sections 54 and 167 of the CrPC, and directed that this should be acted upon within six months. Moreover, the court ruled that the victim is entitled to compensation awarded in such cases. Additionally, the High Court issued 15 directives as follows:
1. Police cannot arrest someone under Section 54 just to detain them under the Special Powers Act, 1974.
2. Police must show their ID and identify themselves when making an arrest if asked.
3. Police must write down the reason for the arrest and other details in a register until a special record is introduced.
4. If the arrested person has injuries, the police must record the reason and take them to a hospital or government doctor for treatment and obtain a medical certificate.
5. The police must inform the arrested person of the reason for their arrest within three hours of bringing them to the police station.
6. If the person was arrested away from their home or workplace, the police must inform their family within one hour via phone or messenger.
7. The arrested person must be allowed to talk to a lawyer or close family member if they wish.
8. When representing the accused before the magistrate, the police must explain
• Why couldn’t the investigation be completed within 24 hours?
• Why was the arrest believed to be justified? And
• Provide copies of case records to the magistrate.
9. If the magistrate finds the arrest justified, they can order the person to stay in jail. If not, they must release the person immediately.
10. If the magistrate finds that the arrest was unjustified and without proper evidence, they must take legal action against the arresting officer for wrongful detention under Section 220 of the Penal Code.
11. If the magistrate orders further detention in jail, any necessary interrogation must take place inside the jail until a special interrogation room is built.
12. When requesting police custody for interrogation, the investigating officer must clearly state the reasons.
13. If the magistrate approves police custody, they must follow specific guidelines to ensure the detainee’s rights are protected.
14. If a person dies in police or jail custody, the police or jail officer must immediately inform the nearest magistrate.
15. The magistrate must investigate any custodial death as soon as they receive the report.
Relevant Laws :
- The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
- Article : 27, 31, 32, 33, 35, 102
- The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898
- Section : 54, 167
- The Special Powers Act, 1974
- Section : 3
Author :
1. Muhammad Ishrak Ahsan Khan
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
