Bail Must Not Become a Gateway to Repeated Crimes

None of us should have to fear that gang leaders, extortionists and drug dealers who once terrorised our neighbourhoods may regain their influence. Yet, reports of revived extortion networks, tender manipulation and violent turf wars suggest that this threat remains real. A recent report published in this newspaper has highlighted how several notorious criminals have returned to public life after securing bail, raising serious concerns about the state’s ability to contain organised crime. While the courts have the authority to grant bail, the government cannot overlook its own responsibility to ensure that those facing serious charges are properly prosecuted.

Certainly, judicial independence must be respected, and bail remains an essential safeguard of justice. However, the executive branch must ensure that prosecutors present well-prepared cases and provide courts with all relevant information. This includes submitting necessary evidence, highlighting criminal records and raising appropriate objections during bail hearings. When prosecutors overlook crucial details or fail to prepare adequately, they weaken the state’s case and may compromise the proper assessment of bail applications. Such shortcomings call for administrative scrutiny and accountability.

The consequences of these institutional weaknesses become clearer when we consider the wider pattern of arrests and releases. Police Headquarters data reportedly show that authorities arrest around 70,000 suspects nationwide every month, while nearly the same number leave custody. Between May 1 and August 26, police arrested 195,146 people. At the same time, several notorious underworld figures, including Subrata Bain, Emon, Freedom Rasu, Sweden Aslam and Picchi Helal, secured bail during the previous interim administration, prompting concerns about the possible revival of their criminal networks. The repeated arrests of individuals such as Masuma Parvin Shimu in Chattogram and several people in Manikganj and Mymensingh, some reportedly arrested up to six times, further expose the limited deterrent effect of existing enforcement measures. Clearly, arrest figures alone cannot demonstrate success when the same individuals repeatedly come into conflict with the law.

Therefore, tackling this problem requires more than arrests and prosecutions; it also demands better coordination among the institutions responsible for public security. The lack of effective information-sharing between prisons and police stations makes it difficult to keep track of individuals subject to court-imposed bail conditions. An operational Central Monitoring Cell and updated criminal databases could help address this gap, allowing law enforcement agencies to respond promptly to credible reports of further offences. Nevertheless, such monitoring must respect due process and individual rights. Securing bail must not itself become grounds for harassment or arbitrary restrictions.

Ultimately, the current administration must strengthen state prosecution, improve coordination among law enforcement agencies and investigate organised crime without political favour. We expect the government to ensure that institutional weaknesses do not allow criminal networks to regain their influence at the expense of public security. Bail is an essential safeguard of justice, but it must not become a gateway to renewed crime.