One fueling concept every human rights activist is well versed with is ‘fictitious’ criminal cases. A situation where perhaps the fact is fabricated or if accurate, the arrested individual(s)’ identity do not match with that of the original accused(s). This not only causes a societal imbalance among such affected individuals and their families but ultimately, shatter the age-old hopeful expectations from the legal system and the rule of law of the country.
One may assume that government uses the law enforcement agency to crack down on its political rivals using such fictitious cases, particularly during times of riot, for example, arrests under the Explosives Act in 2018. Not to mention the regularly fabricated drug cases, upon discovery of possession of drugs by individuals (particularly, Yaba) by exploiting Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. While officially accusing someone of a crime, in court, the basic requirements are a degree of evidence that the accused was likely involved in the incident. However, the police force in Bangladesh can file criminal complaints against anyone without having to present any proof. The Court in such cases, require to play a pivotal role in assessing such submissions.

The person arrested gets suspended from his job, attends court proceedings at regular intervals, imprisoned; in short, segregated from the ordinary course of society only to eventually find out about their innocence. Justice was bestowed but the man was never meant to place his hands for begging in the first place.

The detriment it is causing is the unnecessary filing of cases to an already worsened situation of case backlogs. With over four million cases backlogged in the Courts of Bangladesh, it would take approximately half a century to clear the existing pile of cases, provided that no new case will be filed until its clearance – it is hazier than a daydream.

The Constitution of Bangladesh has vested the right to a speedy and fair trial and the right to complete justice, as provided in Articles 35 and 104, respectively. But with the filing of such fabricated cases with intent to cause damage or nuisance, such objectives would not be possible to meet. The fabrication of criminal cases is clearly an unconstitutional action that require a stricter deterrent factor. This could also be achieved via better, that is, impartial implementation of Sections 193, 209, 211, etc. of the Penal Code 1860, regardless of the profession and designation the informer or complainant holds.  Hopefully with a strong deterring precedent and stricter application of the judicial mind, such fabrications can be counteracted.