A legal notice has been served on four key government authorities seeking immediate steps to prevent the alleged misuse of the “shown arrest” provision under Section 167A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Lawyers claim the provision is being used increasingly to keep individuals in custody despite receiving bail from courts.
The notice was sent on Sunday to the secretaries of the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Ministry and the Home Ministry, the Registrar General of the Supreme Court, and the Inspector General of Police (IGP), demanding action to ensure that court-granted bail orders are not rendered ineffective through fresh arrests in separate cases.
It warned that if the authorities fail to take necessary steps within five days of receiving the notice, a writ petition will be filed with the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution along with other legal actions.
Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Mohammad Humayun Kabir Pallab issued the notice on behalf of the Law and Life Foundation Trust and three lawyers-Barrister Mohammad Kausar, Md Maksudur Rahman, and Maruf Hasan Tamal.
The notice alleged that a growing practice has emerged where individuals granted bail in one case are subsequently shown arrested in another case and kept behind bars.
Such actions, the lawyers argued, undermine the authority of judicial orders and violate constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.
“Bail is meant to be the rule and detention the exception,” the notice said, adding that the increasing use of shown arrest in fresh cases has effectively turned the process into a tool for prolonged detention.
The notice referred to Section 167A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced through the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2026.
Under the provision, when authorities seek to show a person already in custody as arrested in another case, the magistrate must examine the case diary, ensure the person is produced before the court, provide an opportunity for the accused to make a statement, and determine whether the application has a valid legal basis.
The lawyers argued that these safeguards are often not being properly followed, leading to arbitrary detention and weakening protections guaranteed under Articles 32, 33, 35, and 36 of the Constitution.
The notice cited examples involving former chief justice ABM Khairul Haque and former Narayanganj mayor Selina Hayat Ivy, saying that showing individuals arrested in separate cases after they obtain bail is not an isolated incident but part of a wider pattern.
It alleged that protections contained in Sections 54, 61, 167, and 167A of the Code of Criminal Procedure are frequently being ignored. According to the notice, arrests are sometimes made without adequate grounds, remand petitions are not properly scrutinised, and applications under Section 167A are approved without sufficient judicial review.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Saifuzzaman vs State, the lawyers said the judiciary has a responsibility to prevent misuse of police powers.
They also stressed that magistrates must exercise their authority independently and remain free from executive influence.
The notice further referred to observations by the Supreme Court of India that repeatedly using new cases to keep an accused person in custody after bail has been granted is not acceptable.
It argued that the use of shown arrest without proper justification defeats the purpose of bail and effectively becomes a punitive measure.
The lawyers also cited the landmark Bangladesh vs BLAST judgment, which highlighted accountability of authorities in cases involving unlawful arrest and detention.
Barrister Humayun Kabir Pallab said the notice placed three specific demands before the authorities- ending the use of shown arrest to defeat bail orders; issuing clear and mandatory guidelines defining what constitutes a “valid legal basis” under Section 167A; and ensuring that no person granted bail is shown arrested in another case unless all legal requirements are fulfilled.
