Analysing the 2025 Amendments to the CrPC

The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (CrPC) has been the cornerstone of our administration of criminal justice for more than a century. However, people have constantly criticised its provisions for granting excessive power to the police. Finally, the government of Bangladesh has enacted the Code of Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2025. This write-up will analyse the changes brought by the amendments that are both ambitious and significant.

At the core of this amendment lies the restructuring of the provisions related to both the pre-arrest and post-arrest processes. The newly brought provisions (sections 46A---46E) put strict obligations on the officer or person making an arrest. Among the many significant changes are the requirements for police to carry visible identification while making arrests, disclose their identity when requested, and show official identification upon request.

Importantly, after making an arrest, preparing a written arrest memorandum is now compulsory. Not only will the arresting officer prepare such a memorandum, but they will also have it attested and countersigned by a family member or local witness (and if no such witness is available, the reasons thereof shall be recorded), as well as by the person arrested, unless refused by them. Furthermore, the arresting officer must provide the arrested person with a chance to reach out to their relatives and consult a lawyer, preferably within 12 hours from the time of arrest.

Moreover, if injuries on the body of the arrested are found or if they appear to be sick, certificates shall be furnished through immediate medical examination and treatment, preferably by a medical officer in a government hospital. However, if no such government medical officer is available nearby, the arresting officer can have the detainee examined and treated by doctors at private hospital as well, provided the doctor is a registered medical practitioner. 

Similarly, the long-criticised section 54, notoriously known as a free license for police to arrest virtually anyone, has been brought under scrutiny and tightened by provisions that offer more clarity, justification, and accountability. Notably, these changes to section 54 were greatly influenced by our Apex Court's guidelines in Bangladesh v BLAST (2016) popularly known as the Rubel killing case. Most of the guidelines are addressed in this amendment, however, few guidelines from the original verdict by the HCD are left unaddressed- e.g., interrogating the accused in a room with glass walls within sight of the lawyer or relations, etc.

Furthermore, significant changes have been brought about regarding police remand. Previously, the period of police remand could be extended up to 15 days upon the application by the police. From now on, an accused cannot be held in police custody for more than 15 days in total. If further detention is considered necessary, only judicial custody can be permitted. Ordering medical examinations before and after such police custody to rule out by the Magistrate any torture or marks of injury is also made mandatory.

The controversial practice of "shown arrest" application has also been addressed comprehensively under section 167A, which now obliges the magistrate to entertain such applications only when certain requirements are met, such as--producing the accused before the magistrates with supporting documents and allowing the accused a chance of being heard.

Additionally, fixing 60 working days for submitting the police investigation report under the newly inserted section 173B sounds promising. Extension is allowed only in limited circumstances.  Magistrates are now empowered to take actions against the investigators for causing unreasonable delay. 

And lastly, the mobile court system, for its prompt actions, has long been acclaimed by the public. However, many demanded that it be conducted by judicial officers rather than executive officers. This aspiration is reflected in the newly inserted section 264A, which states that a summary trial for scheduled offenses can be conducted at 'any place' within the jurisdiction of the court, and the judgment can also be pronounced in the same session.

Other noteworthy reforms include digital-summons, online-bail bonds, protection of the victims and witnesses, abolishing whipping as punishment, rationalising fine in several sections to match current socio- economic realities.

While these reforms are comprehensive and ambitious, their success will greatly depend on their proper implementation. Police corruption and political influence may continue to remain as a major challenge to the implementation of these promises. Despite these concerns, it has to be admitted that the 2025 Amendment reflects the policymakers' genuine commitment towards ensuring justice for the litigants.

The writer serves as a judge in the Bangladesh Judicial service and writes on legal and judicial reforms.