Speaking up can be a path to justice, yet it may put a person at considerable risk. However, the recent amendment to Section 544 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, has added a new dimension to this issue in criminal proceedings in Bangladesh. This provision now allows the court to take steps for the protection or security of complainants, victims, or witnesses. Justice depends on people’s willingness and ability to participate in criminal proceedings. If fear prevents individuals from coming forward, it can undermine the effective administration of justice.
Before this amendment, for a long period, the law did not expressly address this particular concern. The provision was primarily concerned with the reasonable expenses payable by the government for attending the court so that people seeking or aiding justice do not have to face a financial burden. Although the provision sought to relieve the financial burden of attending the court proceedings, it did not explicitly safeguard against threats, intimidation, or other forms of pressure. Victims and witnesses may face a genuine risk of harm or intimidation from the accused or others connected with the case, making their willingness and ability to provide truthful testimony, to a significant extent, dependent on the protective and security measures available through the relevant court or tribunal.
In the murder case, Mst. Fatema v The State & ors, the informant and the witnesses faced repeated threats from the accused, resulting in their reluctance to testify despite several General Diaries being lodged with the police. Recognizing that such threats could impede witnesses’ participation in the proceedings, the Appellate Division directed the Superintendent of Police to take necessary measures to ensure their security and enable them to give evidence without fear or obstruction. The case demonstrates that, even before the amendment, the court did intervene in taking protective measures for those attending criminal proceedings.
However, judicial intervention was not necessarily available or sufficient in every case. If a person cannot appear or give truthful evidence due to fear or intimidation before the court, the prosecution may face difficulties in proving the case, which may contribute to acquittal. The problem was not whether protection could be provided, but whether a person at risk could safely come forward to seek it. But Section 544(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2026, enacted in 2026, gives the court an express statutory power to address the problem.
The provision states that the court may take necessary steps or pass any order for the protection and security of any informant, complainant, victim, or witness. Moreover, the court may act upon an application made by any aggrieved person or may take action on its own motion where it considers protection necessary. This gives the court a broader scope to respond to a threat before it prevents a person from participating in the proceedings. Besides, the power can be exercised at any stage of criminal proceedings against emerging risk as they arise rather than limiting protection to a particular stage.
Recognizing the court’s power to provide protection is only an initial step; its effectiveness relies on what the protection means and how it is implemented in practice. The provision does not define the nature of protection, or under what conditions it is to be given, or what measures to be taken, leaving these matters largely on the court’s discretion. Although this broad approach gives the court flexibility to respond to various circumstances, it leaves the scope and practical meaning of protection to interpretation. Thus, a question arises as to how the absence of a defined framework will affect its interpretation and application in case.
The real challenge is to turn this broad judicial power into an effective shield in practice. For this power to have practical effect, the extent of protection needs to be clarified, particularly when protection should be granted, how risk should be assessed, and which protective measures may be appropriate in different circumstances. The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 of India illustrates how these factors may be addressed through a more structured and clearly specified framework.
A notable aspect of the Scheme is the assessment of the level and the nature of the threat. The assessment recognizes that the risk is not limited to physical danger; revealing a person’s identity or their location can itself expose them to further risk. Based on the circumstances, the Scheme provides different protective measures, including security arrangements, temporary relocation, and identity protection.
Protection should not necessarily be regarded as a one-time determination. As the level and nature of threat may change throughout the proceedings, protective measures may likewise periodically need to be reviewed and adjusted in response to changing circumstances. The purpose is not to suggest the direct adoption of the Indian framework to Bangladesh. Rather, the scheme may act as a comparative reference for creating a framework appropriate to the protection contemplated under Section 544(2). Such a framework could provide greater transparency on how risk should be assessed, and protective measures implemented, while recognizing that the provision extends beyond witnesses to include informants, complainants and victims.
Establishing a framework alone would not ensure effective protection. Protective measures require adequate infrastructure, resources, and responsible authorities for implementation throughout the proceedings. India’s experience also shows that the existence of a detailed protection scheme does not, by itself, assure effective implementation. Any framework under the provision would need to be supported by the necessary arrangements and resources to ensure that legal protection can be given during actual cases. Without such support, the provision may remain a safeguard on paper rather than one that individuals at risk can meaningfully rely on.
The effectiveness of Section 544(2) eventually depends on how its protective power is interpreted and implemented in practice. A clear and workable framework, supported by adequate resources and arrangements, can help ensure that protection is accessible to those who need it. The provision should enable individuals facing threats to participate in proceedings without fear.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Magazine. The views published are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
