An agreement of 9 lakh taka has not stopped the legal controversy surrounding the recent Baridhara road crash. A 17-year-old boy accused of driving the car that killed construction worker Mehedi Hasan Mim was refused bail by a Dhaka juvenile court on 4 October. Police reports indicate that CCTV footage confirms the teenager’s involvement. This case raises questions regarding when a criminal case can be settled by an agreement between parties and when the State should continue with the trial.

In the civil justice system of Bangladesh, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is firmly embedded in the form of mediation, arbitration, and conciliation, especially in sections 89A to 89E of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But its application in the criminal justice system is not so widespread.

Compounding of offences, under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, serves as a form of criminal ADR. However, not all offences are compoundable. The Baridhara case, brought under sections 98 and 105 of the Road Transport Act, 2018, involves non-compoundable offences. Consequently, the private settlement of 9 lakh taka cannot legally end the criminal proceeding. The author suggests that Bangladesh could implement a system where judges ensure compensation and victim interests are considered while protecting state interests. This is particularly relevant following the 2026 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers courts to assist in the compounding of compoundable offences. Furthermore, the introduction of a regulated plea-bargaining scheme could be considered, provided it is approached with caution to ensure agreements are voluntary, informed, and legal.

বাংলাদেশ সময়: ৭:৩৩:২৩   ৬ বার পঠিত   #ADR  #Bangladesh Judiciary  #Criminal Law  #Legal Reform  #Road Transport Act