BANGLADESH’S criminal justice framework has undergone a significant shake-up in 2025. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898, has been amended twice within a month — first in July and again in August — introducing both procedural refinements and major changes affecting arrests, trials and penalties. At first glance, these amendments seem to strengthen citizens’ rights, enhance judicial oversight and modernise certain processes. Yet the question remains: will these reforms deliver meaningful change, or will they remain largely on paper?
The first amendment, in July, introduced Section 173A, allowing senior police officers to submit ‘interim investigation reports’ before completing a full investigation. In practice, this permits the temporary discharge of accused individuals if preliminary evidence is insufficient, while retaining the possibility of including them in the final report should further evidence emerge. Such a provision could prevent prolonged, unnecessary harassment of citizens while investigations continue.
The August amendment went further, expanding magistrates’ financial powers and overhauling arrest procedures. Fines for first-class magistrates now rise to Tk 5 lakh, while second- and third-class magistrates may impose up to Tk 3 lakh and Tk 2 lakh, respectively. While the word ‘whipping’ has been removed from the CrPC, the colonial-era Whipping Act, 1909, remains, highlighting a gap between symbolic and substantive reform.
Most notable are the new safeguards for individuals under arrest. Section 46A sets out clear duties for arresting officers: wearing visible nameplates, presenting identity cards, preparing a memorandum of arrest attested by witnesses, informing family or friends within 12 hours if the arrest occurs outside the home, arranging medical examinations for injured detainees and ensuring access to legal counsel. Sections 46B and 46C require all arrests to be properly recorded in official registers and displayed, preferably digitally, at police stations and headquarters. These reforms directly address long-standing problems where families are left in the dark about a relative’s detention, and they introduce accountability for officers who fail to follow the rules.
Additional provisions, such as Section 54A, ensure that arrested persons are informed of the reasons for their detention, while Sections 46D and 46E guarantee proper care and medical attention. The amendments also introduce electronic video link appearances before magistrates, a practical departure from the traditional requirement of in-person production within 24 hours. Section 67A empowers magistrates to verify adherence to these procedures and take action against negligent officers.
Other procedural improvements focus on efficiency and transparency. Section 69 allows summons to be served electronically via SMS, voice calls, instant messaging, or e-mail, removing previous gender-specific limitations on family members. Custody under Section 167 is now strictly capped at 15 days, with magistrates authorised to order medical checks to detect torture. Section 173B mandates the completion of investigations within 60 working days, and magistrates may recommend disciplinary action or replacement of officers for negligence.
Crucially, the amendments introduce safeguards against misuse of arrest powers. Section 54 clarifies the conditions under which police may make warrantless arrests for cognizable offences, specifying reasonable suspicion, necessity, and prohibition of preventive detention. Sections 247 and 250 strengthen procedural safeguards in complaint cases, including automatic dismissal in the absence of the complainant and harsher penalties for false or harassing claims.
The summary trial process has also been modernised. The financial threshold for summary trials has been raised to Tk 5 lakh, allowing cases such as theft or criminal breach of trust to be resolved quickly and efficiently. Magistrates can conduct trials on-site, consolidating procedures that previously required multiple court appearances. Amendments to Sections 339B and 143 of the Penal Code streamline trials against absconding accused and allow for compoundable offences to be settled amicably, potentially reducing case backlogs.
Bail provisions have been clarified to allow courts to impose reasonable conditions during trial, promoting corrective justice without unduly denying liberty. Similarly, Sections 540A and 544 ease procedural burdens on defence counsel and ensure witness protection and compensation for travel and subsistence, addressing historical gaps in safeguarding witnesses and victims.
Perhaps the most striking change concerns bail in grievous hurt cases under Section 325 of the Penal Code, which is now non-bailable. Previously, the use or absence of weapons could manipulate bail eligibility, complicating proceedings. The amendment removes such ambiguity, providing a clearer framework for judicial decisions.
While these reforms appear ambitious, several questions remain. Many safeguards depend on proper implementation, which has historically been inconsistent in Bangladesh. The persistence of the Whipping Act, for example, highlights that symbolic repeal within the CrPC does not guarantee the elimination of outdated punishments. Similarly, digitalisation and transparency measures require functioning infrastructure, training, and oversight. Without these, procedures may exist only on paper, offering little practical protection to citizens.
Moreover, expanding fines and judicial powers can create opportunities for misuse. Without clear monitoring mechanisms, higher penalties could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Likewise, the effectiveness of arrest safeguards will depend on police willingness to comply and judicial vigilance to enforce adherence. The amendments introduce strong principles, but the practical reality will determine whether they advance rights or entrench bureaucracy.
In conclusion, the 2025 amendments to the CrPC represent a notable step toward modernising Bangladesh’s criminal justice system. By codifying safeguards for arrested persons, introducing digital processes, and clarifying procedural rights, the government has signalled its intent to enhance accountability and protect citizens. Yet true reform requires consistent enforcement, repeal of outdated laws, and ongoing judicial oversight. If implemented effectively, these amendments could mark a turning point in balancing efficiency, accountability and justice. If neglected, they risk remaining a symbolic exercise in legal modernization — well-intentioned, but ultimately inadequate.
Ìý
Sathirtha Chakma is an undergraduate law student at Bangladesh University of Professionals.
