Police cannot keep an arrested person in custody indefinitely for investigation. If the investigation cannot be completed within the constitutional twenty-four-hour period, the accused must be produced before a competent Magistrate, and any further custody must be judicially authorised under section 167.
Under the current amended Code, police custody may not exceed fifteen days in total in a particular case. Further authorised detention must be judicial custody, subject to the other requirements of law.
When section 167 applies
Section 167 applies when a person has been arrested and detained, the investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours and there are grounds for believing the accusation or information is well founded.
The officer in charge or investigating officer must transmit the relevant case-diary entries to the nearest Judicial Magistrate and forward the accused to the Magistrate.
A remand application should explain why the investigation could not be completed, what investigative purpose requires custody and why that purpose cannot be achieved through a less restrictive method.
The mere statement that remand is needed “for proper investigation” should not replace a fact-specific justification.
Police custody and judicial custody
Police custody means that the accused is placed in the custody of the investigating authority for the period authorised by the Magistrate.
Judicial custody ordinarily means detention under the authority of the court, commonly in prison, rather than physical custody of the investigating police.
The amended section 167 permits the Magistrate to authorise custody for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole at the relevant initial stage. It further provides that police custody shall not exceed fifteen days in the whole in a particular case. If additional detention is authorised, it must be judicial custody subject to the Code.
The fifteen-day ceiling is not a routine entitlement for police. The Magistrate must decide whether any police custody is justified and, if so, for how long.
Production before the Magistrate
The accused must ordinarily be produced before the Magistrate. The amended Code permits production through video link for specified extensions of judicial custody.
Video production should not be used to conceal injury, prevent private legal consultation or avoid judicial inquiry into an allegation of torture.
The Magistrate should verify the identity of the accused, ask about treatment in custody and examine the arrest memorandum, forwarding report and relevant case-diary materials.
Medical examination before and after police custody
The amended section 167 authorises the Magistrate to order medical examination before placing the accused in police custody.
At the end of police custody, the accused must be produced without unnecessary delay. Where the person alleges torture or injury, the Magistrate must order medical examination in accordance with the amended provision.
If the medical report shows evidence of torture, the Magistrate must proceed according to law.
A person with visible injury should ask that the injury be recorded before remand begins. This helps distinguish any earlier injury from harm allegedly caused during police custody.
The role of the Magistrate
A Magistrate does not act as a rubber stamp for the investigating officer. The Magistrate must consider the materials, seriousness of the accusation, necessity of custody, risk to the accused and statutory safeguards.
Section 67A separately requires judicial examination of whether the arrest provisions were followed. Where non-compliance arose from negligence or misconduct, the court may direct service action.
The accused or lawyer should receive a meaningful opportunity to oppose remand and request judicial custody, bail, medical examination or another appropriate order.
Shown arrest in another case
A person already in custody in one case may be sought to be “shown arrested” in another case. The new section 167A restricts this practice.
The Magistrate may not authorise such an arrest merely because police submit an application. The accused must be produced, the application must be well founded, relevant entries from the case diary must be provided and the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard.
The provision also states that the Magistrate shall not authorise judicial custody if the police report discloses that the arrest is being used for preventive-detention purposes. Where a police officer acts contrary to law, section 167A directs the Magistrate to proceed under section 220 of the Penal Code in the circumstances specified by the provision.
The BLAST decision
In Bangladesh and others v Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust and others, the Appellate Division required strict scrutiny of arrest and remand. The Court emphasised that the forwarding report and case diary must disclose why the investigation remained incomplete and why the accusation appeared well founded.
The Court also required medical safeguards and judicial action where injuries or torture were alleged.
The 2026 amendments now codify many of those requirements. The judgment remains important in understanding why a Magistrate must make an independent decision rather than approve custody automatically.
Confession and remand
Police remand is not legally justified merely to obtain a confession. Article 35 protects an accused person from compelled self-incrimination and prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
A judicial confession follows a separate procedure before a Magistrate. The Magistrate must ensure that any confession is voluntary and must comply with the applicable Code provisions.
A confession allegedly made to police is subject to the restrictions of the Evidence Act. Families should not assume that a police claim of “confession” automatically establishes admissible proof.
Bail during remand proceedings
The accused may apply for bail when produced before the Magistrate, subject to the classification and seriousness of the offence.
The court may reject bail yet still refuse police custody and order judicial custody. Bail and remand are separate determinations.
Where an investigation is delayed, the current sixty-working-day framework in section 173B should be considered. However, that provision does not automatically create bail or terminate custody merely because sixty days have passed.
Documents the lawyer should review
The lawyer should seek the FIR, arrest memorandum, forwarding report, remand application, relevant judicial order, medical records and available case-diary materials that the court may lawfully consider.
The order should record the period and type of custody. An oral police claim that remand has been granted should be checked against the actual court order.
Common mistakes
Common mistakes include assuming that fifteen days of police custody is automatic, failing to request medical examination and not telling the Magistrate about undisclosed prior detention.
Another error is confusing judicial custody with police remand. A person may remain detained in judicial custody even after police-custody remand is refused or completed.
Law updated as of 13 July 2026.
Primary sources: Constitution of Bangladesh, Articles 31, 32, 33 and 35; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, sections 54, 67A, 167 and 167A; Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2026; Evidence Act, 1872; Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act, 2013; Bangladesh and others v Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust and others.
Legal-information disclaimer: This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. A person facing remand requires immediate representation by a licensed criminal-law advocate.