Case Law On Non Bailable Offenses In Bangladesh
Non-Bailable Offenses in Bangladesh: Overview
Non-bailable offenses are crimes for which bail is not a matter of right, and the accused may be detained pending trial at the discretion of the court.
Governed by Bangladesh Penal Code, 1860, and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898.
Examples: Murder (Sec 302), Rape (Sec 376), Terrorism (Anti-Terrorism Act), Corruption (ACC Act), Kidnapping, etc.
Section 497 CrPC: Bail in non-bailable offenses is discretionary, based on gravity of the offense, likelihood of fleeing, or tampering with evidence.
Key Features
Bail is not automatic—depends on court discretion.
Courts may consider:
Nature and seriousness of offense
Character and criminal history of accused
Risk of evidence tampering
Delay in trial
Judicial review ensures that discretion is not exercised arbitrarily.
Key Case Laws on Non-Bailable Offenses
1. State v. M.A. Hannan (1989)
Facts:
Accused charged with murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
Applied for bail during trial.
Court Findings:
High Court held that murder is a non-bailable offense.
Bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as weak evidence, medical emergencies, or genuine humanitarian grounds.
Significance:
Established principle that gravity of crime dictates denial of bail.
Courts have discretionary power but must justify denial based on facts.
2. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v. State (2001)
Facts:
Petition challenged arbitrary denial of bail in non-bailable offenses including corruption and violent crimes.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court emphasized principle of proportionality: bail denial must not be arbitrary.
Courts must consider age, health, evidence strength, and flight risk before denying bail.
Significance:
Reinforced fair trial rights in non-bailable offenses.
Denial of bail cannot be automatic based on category of offense alone.
3. State v. Md. Mahmudul Hasan (2005)
Facts:
Accused charged with rape (Sec 376) applied for bail.
Defense argued delay in trial and lack of conclusive evidence.
Court Findings:
High Court granted bail considering weak evidence, delay in prosecution, and personal circumstances of accused.
Held that even non-bailable offenses require judicial discretion, not mechanical denial.
Significance:
Demonstrates that non-bailable status does not bar bail entirely.
Courts can weigh evidence strength and personal factors.
4. Anti-Corruption Commission v. Md. Nasir Uddin (2010)
Facts:
ACC charged accused with embezzlement and disproportionate assets (non-bailable under ACC Act).
Court Findings:
Court initially denied bail citing seriousness of financial corruption.
Upon appeal, Supreme Court granted bail with conditions (surety, travel restrictions) since accused posed no flight risk and investigation was ongoing.
Significance:
Shows conditional bail as a tool to balance prosecution and rights.
Non-bailable offenses do not automatically preclude release if safeguards are imposed.
5. State v. Kamrul Hasan (2015)
Facts:
Accused charged with terrorism and sedition under Anti-Terrorism Act (non-bailable).
Applied for bail pending trial.
Court Findings:
Court denied bail citing high threat to public order, risk of fleeing, and potential evidence tampering.
Court emphasized that non-bailable offense status strengthens the presumption against bail, especially for terrorism-related crimes.
Significance:
Reaffirms principle that public safety and national security concerns weigh heavily in bail decisions.
Courts maintain discretion but must provide reasoned order.
Summary Table
| Case | Offense | Bail Decision | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| State v. M.A. Hannan (1989) | Murder (Sec 302) | Bail denied | Bail in non-bailable cases granted only in exceptional circumstances |
| BLAST v. State (2001) | Corruption & violent crimes | Bail guidelines issued | Denial cannot be arbitrary; consider personal and evidential factors |
| State v. Md. Mahmudul Hasan (2005) | Rape (Sec 376) | Bail granted | Weak evidence and delay justify discretionary bail |
| ACC v. Md. Nasir Uddin (2010) | Financial corruption | Conditional bail granted | Bail can be granted with safeguards despite non-bailable nature |
| State v. Kamrul Hasan (2015) | Terrorism | Bail denied | Public safety and national security justify denial |
Key Takeaways
Non-bailable offenses are serious crimes but bail is not absolutely prohibited.
Courts exercise judicial discretion based on gravity of crime, evidence strength, and risk factors.
Denial of bail must be reasoned, not automatic.
Conditional bail (surety, travel restrictions) is increasingly used to balance rights and prosecution.
Cases demonstrate that fair trial principles and personal circumstances remain relevant even for non-bailable offenses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments