A PERSON who enters state custody should be protected by the law. Their safety becomes the responsibility of the state the moment the handcuffs are placed or the lock on the cell is closed. Yet the reality shows a picture that is far from this basic idea. Reports from rights groups and media have long told us about custodial deaths, but the pattern visible is deeply worrying.
For my professional purpose, I have been closely working on custodial torture and death and observed a certain common pattern appear again and again. Whenever a death occurs inside a police station or under any other state agencies鈥� custody, the first step taken is usually the filing of an unnatural death case. This is done at the same police station where the death occurred. This means the first official record is created by the very institution that was responsible for the person鈥檚 safety. The possibility of bias begins from this very moment.
During inquiries, officers often say that CCTV cameras were not installed or were not working at the time of the incident. Even there鈥檚 precedence that all of the cells have functioning CCTV cameras except the very cell where the death occurred. This excuse appears so frequently that it has almost become predictable. Without video footage, it becomes much harder to clarify what happened inside the cell or during interrogation.
Another recurring problem is the delay in doing an inquest. Police or other relevant agencies often say that the magistrate arrived late or that they had to wait for instructions before touching the body. And the magistrates often say they had overwhelming works or took time to get the written order for doing that inquest.听 These delays create room for confusion and, in some cases, suspicion.
Families have also frequently said that they were not informed quickly when their relative died. Some learned the news from neighbours or local journalists, not from the police. Such behaviour only deepens mistrust.
There are also troubling instances where guards or duty officers who were present during the incident suddenly go on leave. Sometimes their statements are not taken at the scene. Important evidence is lost. The investigation is then handled by the same unit that had custody of the person. This practice goes against basic principles of impartiality. Even if the officers are honest, an investigation conducted by colleagues from the same unit cannot be seen as independent.
International law has very clear instructions on how states must respond to deaths in custody. Bangladesh is not outside this system. The country ratified the Convention against Torture on October 5, 1998, more than two decades ago. By doing so Bangladesh accepted the obligation to prevent torture and to investigate every custodial death with seriousness and independence. The Convention does not treat these investigations as optional. It calls for quick, impartial and credible inquiries that can uncover whether torture or negligence was involved.
The Minnesota Protocol (2016), which is the authoritative global guideline for investigating suspicious deaths, gives even more detailed direction. It suggested that any death in custody be investigated in a manner that is 鈥榩rompt, effective, thorough, independent and impartial.鈥� Our investigative practices often fall far short of this basic threshold.
These are simple steps but they serve a crucial purpose. They ensure that the truth is not lost. They protect innocent officers from false blame and give justice to victims if wrongdoing occurred. Most importantly, they reinforce public trust in institutions.
Bangladesh also has its own Torture and Custodial Death Act which was passed in 2013. On paper it is a strong law. It criminalises torture by state officials and recognises deaths caused by torture as a serious offence. The intention behind the law was clear. No uniform should protect an officer who harms a person in custody. Yet more than a decade later the reality has not matched the goal.
Between January 2013 and May 2024, rights group Ain o Salish Kendra has documented听138 deaths听which were allegedly caused due to physical torture by law enforcement agencies. And this year, this organisation has recorded 15 custodial deaths from January to November 22, 2025 under the custody of various law enforcement agencies including Detective Branch, Rapid Action Battalion and Police Bureau of Investigation. These are not just numbers. Each death represents a failure inside the system that is supposed to uphold justice.
The filing of cases under the 鈥楾orture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act, 2013鈥� is challenging since victim families are often unaware of this legislation. At times, law enforcement authorities manipulate the family by stating that a case has been opened after reporting an unnatural death case, leading the family to hold onto hope for years in pursuit of justice. At times, they feel intimidated by law enforcement agencies or by external figures such as powerful political leaders to avoid filing any case. Typically, victims鈥� families lack faith in mighty law enforcement agencies or in legal processes. I remember a remark made by a relative of a custodial death victim who disheartenedly said, 鈥榢ar kache bichar chaibo? J marche tar kachei? (Whom do we ask for justice? The one who died was in their hands?)
As per Amnesty International, the government reported that merely 24 cases have been lodged from 2013 to September 2023 under the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act, 2013. The sole instance of torture that resulted in a conviction under Bangladesh鈥檚 2013 torture law involved Ishtiaque Hossain Johnny and his sibling Imtiaz Hossain Rocky, who were subjected to police torture at Pallabi Police Station in Dhaka following their arbitrary arrest on February 9, 2014. In September 2020, a trial court in Dhaka found the offenders guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment for Johnny鈥檚 death, while also ordering compensation for Johnny鈥檚 family.
Custodial death is not only a legal failure. It is a tragedy that weakens the bond between citizens and the state. Bangladesh has already committed itself to international frameworks and adopted its own laws that protect people in custody. The next step is to put these commitments into practice. A death inside custody should never be shrouded in confusion. It should be investigated with honesty, independence and care. Only then can the public believe that justice still has meaning.
听
Md Ariful Islam is researcher, rights activist and works with Ain o Salish Kendra.
