Staff Reporter :The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a High Court directive that asked for reform of the provisions of arrest without warrant and interrogation on remand Under Sections 54 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).It rejected the appeal filed by the state against a HC order that had issued some directives on the sections 54 and 167 of the CrPC, which allows law enforcers to arrest people without any warrant and grill them in custody, respectively.The appeal court said that it would give a guideline on how to apply these two sections (54 and 167). A four-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha passed the short order, saying the appeal is dismissed but there would be some modifications. The Appellate Division also upheld the 15 directives of the High Court. It also said sections 54 and 67 of the CrPC are contradictory with sections 31, 33, 35.Talking to journalists at the court premises, senior jurist Dr Kamal Hossain said the Appellate Division just upheld the 15-point directive issued earlier by the High Court on arrest Under the Section 54 and remand Under Section 167 of the CrPC. “It seems we are entering the 21st Century from the 19th Century. We would know about it in details once the full judgement is released,” he said. Barrister Sara Hossain, a lawyer of Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), said the court rejected the appeal of the state and will issue some guidelines in the full judgment.”It (judgment) has given the (High Court) instruction a binding effect,” she said.Barrister M Amir-Ul Islam, another senior lawyer talking to journalists at the court premises said, the Appellate Division never stayed the 15-point directive of the High Court. “After the dismissal of the state appeal, now it becomes the duty of the law enforcement agencies to obey those directives. They have to do this for the sake of rule of law,” he said. Eminent lawyer Swadhin Malik termed the verdict as ‘welcome judgement’ saying, this judgement affirms our development into a middle-income country.”The difference between a least developed country and a middle-income country is that law enforcing agencies abide by law. This judgement direct law enforcing agencies to operate within law while arresting or interrogating on remand,” in his instant reaction he told The New Nation yesterday afternoon. Meanwhile, Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal in his instant reaction on Tuesday said action will be taken upon abuse of Section 54 of the CrPC.He urged the law enforcement agencies to follow the HC order during arrest and interrogation under the Sections 54 and 167 of the CrPC.”There is no chance to misuse the law. If anyone misuses the law, we will take departmental action against them. Every person has to follow the directives of the apex court,” he told this to journalists at his secretariat office.He said after receiving the copy of the judgment, we will follow the guidelines. “The law enforcement agencies will have to follow the rules while they will arrest someone or put them on remand Under the Sections 54 and 167 of the CrPC,” Asaduzzaman said. Responding to a question that the law enforcement agencies did not follow the guidelines, the Home Minister said this is not correct. He said order has been given to the plainclothes police to use ID cards while they will conduct drive for an arrest.Attorney General Mahbubey Alam said after obtaining full verdict the government will take the next step.”In line with present social situation, the court will give its judgement,” he told journalists. The 15 directives are: 1. Police must not arrest anyone Under the Section 54 to put him/her into detention; 2. Police shall show their identity cards while arresting the person; 3. Police shall write down the reason behind the arrest on a separate document; 4. If police finds injury marks on the body of an arrestee, they must write down the cause of that mark and take him to hospital for treatment and must bring doctors certificate; 5. Police have to inform the arrestee the reason for his/her arrest within three hours of his detention;6. They must inform relatives of a person arrested anywhere outside his/her house or workplace within an hour of the arrest through telephone or a messenger; 7. The detainee shall be allowed to meet and consult lawyers of his/her choice and relatives for legal assistance; 8. If law enforcers want to quiz the person in custody for the second time, they must need to take permission from a magistrate and the interrogation must take place in a glass-made room inside the prison; relatives and lawyers of the detainee can be present outside the room; 9. The detainee must be checked by a doctor before and after the interrogation; 10. If necessary information is not found during interrogation in jail, the investigation officer, with the permission from the magistrate, can interrogate the detainee maximum three days in police custody; 11. The detainee shall be examined by a physician before and after the interrogation; 12. If the detainee alleges physical torture during interrogation, the magistrate shall form a Medical Board to check his/her health condition. If the allegation is found to be true, the magistrate shall take action against the law enforcers responsible Under the Section 330 of the CrPC.13. If the arrestee dies in police custody or in jail, the matter shall be informed to a magistrate instantly; 14. Magistrate shall order investigation into the death in police or jail custody and an autopsy shall be conducted on the body; 15. If the probe finds that a person really died in police or jail custody, then the magistrate acting on the allegation lodged by the relatives of the dead, shall order investigation.On May 17, the Supreme Court observed that any arrest by law enforcers in plainclothes is alarming, saying the law enforcers will have to be in uniform while arresting anyone.On that day the apex court set Tuesday (May 24) to pass its order in the matters after concluding hearing from both the state and the petitioner. Attorney General Mahbubey Alam and additional attorney general Murad Reza moved for the state appeal at the court.Earlier on March 22, the Supreme Court started hearing the petition filed by the state against the High Court order. On January 20, the Appellate Division asked the government what steps had been taken regarding the HC guideline. It also directed the government to submit a progress report in this regard. It may be mentioned that in 2004, the then four-party alliance government filed an appeal against the HC verdict. In 1998, Assistant Commissioner Akram Hossain of the Detective Branch (DB) of police arrested Shamim Reza, a student of Independent University, under section 54 of the CrPC. The student died in police custody later.As BLAST filed a writ petition with the High Court in 2003, the court asked the government to take steps to amend the relevant sections of the CrPC. It also gave 15 directives for amending it.
