A special legal aid digitisation portal was introduced by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs on August, 2026. The project is a positive move towards the rationalisation of case tracking, streamlining of bail documentation, and enhancing access to justice for less privileged litigants in Bangladesh’s subordinate courts. Of course, this implementation was greeted with skepticism from legal practitioners and civil rights activists, who noted that the implementation of digital tracking software would not solve faster pre-trial incarceration because of the systemic bottlenecks. But the critics said administrative software cannot solve the real problems that stem from the procedure that can keep an undertrial prisoner in jail for years without any formal charge.
This wariness is part of a larger structural issue in administration of justice: the right of undertrial prisoners and the marginalised accused are seldom given a high priority until their procedural delays become serious human rights abuses. Digitalising legal aid processing facilitates administrative control of legal aid, but the larger problem with the judicial branch is that the pre-trial detention is a regular and frequent violation of a presumption of innocence. Temporary detention, if not torture, continues to become a permanent sentence in the absence of a maximum pre-trial detention period.
The purpose of pre-trial detention is to be used only as an exceptional preventive measure, where there is a flight risk, serious offences, or risk of affecting the evidence. However, in the reality of the situation the practice of detention in the Central and District Jails has turned into a regular alternative to speedy investigation and trial in Bangladesh. Thousands of undertrial prisoners are incarcerated far beyond the reasonable limits, many of whom are accused of bailable and minor offences under special statutory laws, and are often lodged in jail for a period of punishment exceeding the maximum sentence for the crime that they are alleged of. The human impact is deep: breadwinners lose their jobs, families find themselves bankrupt from the costs of litigation, and overcrowding in correctional facilities places a heavy burden on sanitation, health and security systems.
But how many times in a while is an undertrial prisoner released when investigating agencies are missing statutory filing deadlines? Subordinate courts typically delay bail applications made when a person has been detained for an extended period, when police reports are delayed, prosecution witnesses are missing, or the courts are overwhelmed with cases. It is this structural inertia, which is causing the need for an urgent, systematic overhaul of the law, particularly with respect to statutory time limits on pre-trial detention and compulsory bail mechanisms.
Presently, there is no comprehensive and self-executive law in Bangladesh to ensure bail or trial discharge if the process does not get completed within a specific period. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898 provides general guidelines on the timelines of the trial but permits detentions to be continued indefinitely without starting the trial. In the meantime, there are clear statutory speed to trial protections in effect in several international jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions such as India and some of the Commonwealth countries, there are statutory provisions that mandate that the bail shall be granted automatically if the formal charge sheet is not filed within a certain time frame, or if the trial does not take place within a certain time frame from the arrest date.
The fact that these statutory speed-to-trial limits exist proves that it is possible to adhere to public safety and integrity of the prosecution while also setting limits on pre-trial detention in criminal procedures. Higher courts in Bangladesh issued instructions on judicial review from time to time to locate long term undertrial prisoners and hasten their release. It is a testament to the willingness of judges to focus on detention cases that these sporadic interventions show that the identification of such cases is possible. The deficiencies in the system of ad hoc judicial inspections, however, mean that thousands of poor prisoners are not protected systemically through the procedures.
Statutory detention limits are not a reward for crime or an undue burden on the police. There is a need to establish an accountable procedural timeline by judiciaries, police administration and public prosecutors within District level. No accused person, irrespective of their socio-economic status or whether they are represented by a lawyer, should be sent to prison while an investigation report is delayed or a police witness for the case is not available to attend the hearings. Criminal procedure should incorporate clear and firm time limits on police investigations, require bail hearings for accused persons who have already spent 50% of their maximum likely sentence before trial and use clear and firm time limits to hold prosecution offices accountable for unexcused delays in the trial.
Apart from statutory procedural restrictions, legal aid authorities and local bar associations should contribute to a judicial culture that gives the advantage of bail, and the disadvantage of imprisonment. Some may say that the new pre-trial release periods pose a danger of releasing criminals before they receive the punishment they deserve or overburdening already responsible police forces. That’s why a careful legislative design is necessary to strike an appropriate balance, between safeguarding public safety right to convict for serious offenses and imposing absolute time limits for minor and non-violent offenses. The intent is not to undermine law enforcement, but to prevent that pre-trial moves into extrajudicial punishment.
The buzz around the use of digital legal aid tools in the public discourse shows that administrative modernisation is not a substitute for substantive legal protection. Thousands of people are languishing behind bars who are not convicted, because of entrenched institutional practices, bureaucratic delays, and weak public defense services. It is important for all members of the legal profession, law enforcement and judicial officers to understand that prolonged detention without trial is a direct violation of constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and due process. There is no need to wait for trials to provide protection for civil liberties and alleviate prison congestion. In short, the administrative hassle of keeping track of court dockets, while an obstacle, is not the main problem, rather it is the reluctance to shift from an archaic way of thinking about pre-trial that sees extended periods of detention as a necessary and accepted part of the criminal justice system.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is an LLB student, Department of Law, World University of Bangladesh
