Retracted Confession in Bangladesh: Confessions, Co-Accused Statements and Witness Protection in 2026

Retracted confession Bangladesh: the 2026 legal position

The law on retracted confession Bangladesh courts apply governs one of the most contested pieces of evidence in any criminal trial. An accused is produced before a magistrate, makes a confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and months later tells the trial court that the statement was beaten, threatened or coached out of him. Whether the court accepts the confessional statement, rejects it or looks for corroboration often decides the case, and in murder trials it can decide between acquittal and a death sentence.

This guide explains how confessions are recorded under sections 164 and 364, when sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act 1872 shut them out, how the Appellate Division weighs a retracted confession and a co-accused's confession, and how remand and custodial torture affect admissibility. It then covers witness protection, where Bangladesh still has no general statute, and closes with a short note on the Criminal Miscellaneous cases through which most of these issues reach the High Court Division.

Summary: A judicial confession that the court finds both voluntary and true can support a conviction of its maker on its own, even if he later retracts it. Courts test voluntariness first, then truth against the medical and other evidence, and treat illegal detention, torture and procedural lapses as strong grounds to reject it. A co-accused's confession needs corroboration before it can be used against anyone else.

Key point: Retraction alone does not destroy a confession. The Appellate Division has held that a true and voluntary confession may found a conviction against its maker even after retraction, and that a retraction raised only at the section 342 examination carries little weight. What destroys a confession is proof that it was not voluntary, or that it does not fit the facts.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

What a confession is, and why so many are retracted

The Evidence Act does not define "confession". The Appellate Division has adopted the definition in Stephen's Digest: an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed it.[6] A statement that explains away guilt is not a confession at all, however many incriminating facts it contains.

Judicial and extra-judicial confessions

A judicial confession is one recorded by a magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An extra-judicial confession is made to anyone else: a relative, a neighbour, a village elder. The Appellate Division treats extra-judicial confessions with caution, even where they appear true and voluntary, holding that their value depends on the veracity of the witnesses who report them, the circumstances in which they were made and the actual words used.[4] This guide concentrates on judicial confessions, because those are the statements most often retracted.

Why retraction is the rule rather than the exception

Most confessional statements are made after arrest, while the accused is in or just out of police hands. By the time of trial he has had legal advice, seen the prosecution evidence and understood what the statement means. Retraction applications therefore follow a familiar pattern: the accused says he was tortured, threatened with "crossfire", promised that he would be made an approver, or simply told what to say. Those exact claims appear in the reported cases.[5] [9] Courts have heard them so often that the bare allegation rarely succeeds. Evidence does.

Recording a confession under sections 164 and 364 CrPC

The procedural safeguards sit in section 164 of the Code, which applies to confessions made during investigation or at any later time before the inquiry or trial begins.[1]

Who may record a confession

A Metropolitan Magistrate, a Magistrate of the first class, or a Magistrate of the second class specially empowered by the government may record a confession, provided the magistrate is not a police officer. The recording magistrate need not have jurisdiction over the case.[1] A confession made to a police officer, however senior, is not a section 164 confession and is barred by the Evidence Act.

The warning, the questioning and the memorandum

Before recording a confessional statement, the magistrate must explain that the person is not bound to confess and that anything he says may be used against him. The magistrate may record the confession only if, after questioning the person, he has reason to believe it is being made voluntarily. The confession is recorded and signed in the manner set out in section 364, and the magistrate appends a signed memorandum certifying the warning, his belief in voluntariness, that it was taken in his presence and hearing, that it was read over and admitted correct, and that it is a full and true account.[1]

In practice the magistrate uses the prescribed form in the Criminal Rules and Orders (Practice and Procedure of Subordinate Courts) 2009, filling in columns that record the caution and the magistrate's memorandum of satisfaction.[8] The Appellate Division has summarised the essentials as the statutory warning, questioning to test voluntariness and the closing memorandum; where those formalities are observed, the confession is generally treated as voluntary.[5]

Reflection time and freedom from police influence

The purpose of the procedure is to place the accused in a situation free from police influence so that, if he speaks, he speaks voluntarily.[6] Defence counsel routinely test whether the investigating officer was in or near the room, whether the accused was given sufficient time to reflect, and whether he was sent back to police custody afterwards. The High Court Division has also stressed that a magistrate must look beyond the accused's words, observe his demeanour and, if the forwarding papers mention injuries, inquire whether they were caused by custodial torture and whether the accused is still afraid.[8]

Section 533: when procedural lapses are cured

Not every irregularity is fatal. Section 533 provides that where a court finds the recording magistrate did not comply with section 164 or section 364, it shall take evidence that the accused duly made the statement and, notwithstanding section 91 of the Evidence Act, admit it if the error has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits. The Appellate Division explained that provision in Major Bazlul Huda v State, 62 DLR (AD) 1, and the High Court Division has held that use of an outdated printed memorandum, without a handwritten one, does not by itself make a confession inadmissible.[8] The cure is limited: where the lapse goes to voluntariness, section 533 does not save the confession.

Did the 2025 and 2026 reforms change the confession rules?

The interim government's CrPC amendment ordinance of 2025 became the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2026 (Act No. 11 of 2026). It inserted the new arrest safeguards in sections 46A to 46E, amended section 167 and inserted section 167A on shown arrest, but it did not amend sections 164, 342, 364 or 533.[3] The confession procedure is therefore unchanged, although the stricter arrest and remand rules give the defence more material to show that a confession was not voluntary. The arrest provisions are explained in our guide to the rights of the accused in Bangladesh.

Evidence Act sections 24 to 30: when a confession is excluded

Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act 1872 decide whether a confession can be proved at all.[2] They operate independently of section 164: a confession recorded with every formality can still be excluded under section 24, and an extra-judicial confession falls to be tested under the same provisions.

Section 24: inducement, threat or promise

A confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the court considers that it was caused by an inducement, threat or promise relating to the charge, proceeding from a person in authority, and sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds to suppose that by confessing he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature.[2] A promise to make the accused an approver, or a threat of further remand, is the classic example. The word "appears" in the section matters: the accused does not have to prove the inducement strictly; it is enough that it appears to the court.

Sections 25 and 26: the police bar

Section 25 provides that no confession made to a police officer can be proved against the accused. Section 26 extends the bar to any confession made while the accused is in police custody, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate.[2] Together they explain why police seek a section 164 confession rather than rely on what an accused tells them during interrogation, and why the defence scrutinises whether the "magistrate's presence" was real.

Section 27: discovery of facts

Section 27 is the narrow exception. Where information from an accused in police custody leads to the discovery of a fact, so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered may be proved.[2] The Appellate Division has warned that section 27 is frequently misused by the police and that courts must guard against a simple recovery being dressed up as a discovery to let in a custodial statement.[4] In a 2026 death reference, the High Court Division rejected an alleged knife recovery, noting among other things that the knife was never produced as a material exhibit.[9]

Sections 28 and 29: removal of the impression and other circumstances

Under section 28, a confession made after the impression caused by an inducement, threat or promise has been fully removed becomes relevant again. Under section 29, a confession that is otherwise relevant does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, through a deception practised on the accused, while he was drunk, in answer to questions he need not have answered, or without a warning that he was not bound to speak.[2]

Section 30: confession affecting a co-accused

Section 30 allows the court, where several persons are tried jointly for the same offence and the confession of one affecting himself and others is proved, to take that confession into consideration against the others as well as the maker.[2] [7] How much weight such a confession carries is discussed below.

Can one be punished only based on confession?

Yes, against the person who made it, if the court finds it both voluntary and true. That is the starting point of retracted confession Bangladesh law. The Appellate Division has repeatedly described this as settled law: a judicial confession found true and voluntary can form the sole basis of the maker's conviction, citing Islamuddin alias Din Islam v State, 13 BLC (AD) 81.[5] [10] In the Rajshahi University professor murder appeal it said that conviction can be awarded solely on confessional statements if they were made voluntarily, because no rational person makes an admission against his interest unless prompted by conscience.[6]

The double test: voluntary first, then true

In Md Humayun Kabir v State, 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76, the Appellate Division adopted the Indian Supreme Court's formulation that where the prosecution seeks a capital conviction primarily on a confession, the court must ask whether the confession is perfectly voluntary and, if so, whether it is perfectly true.[4] The order of the questions matters. The Appellate Division has held that if a confession fails the test of voluntariness, the second test is immaterial: the court cannot use it, however truthful it may be.[6]

Truth is tested against the rest of the evidence

Truth is tested by comparing the confession with the independent evidence. In Humayun Kabir the Appellate Division called true and complete disclosure "the soul" of a true confession, found that the post-mortem report and the testimony of four witnesses were inconsistent with the confession, held that it would be extremely unsafe to convict on it, and allowed the appeal against a death sentence.[4] Minor discrepancies are different. In the professor murder case the court accepted confessions whose description of a knife wound "substantially fit" the medical evidence, holding that only a variance that makes the confession improbable should raise suspicion.[6]

Accepting part of a confession

Older authority required a court to accept or reject a confession as a whole. In State v Lalu Mia, 39 DLR (AD) 117, the Appellate Division held that where no other evidence shows that the exculpatory part of a confession is false, the court cannot accept the inculpatory part while rejecting the exculpatory part as inherently incredible.[10] More recent Appellate Division decisions put the point differently, holding that where the magistrate observed all the legal formalities, the court may accept the inculpatory part and reject an untrue exculpatory part.[5] The reconciling principle is that the court may reject an exculpatory part only where other evidence shows it to be false.

Retracted confession Bangladesh case law: how the Appellate Division weighs it

In retracted confession Bangladesh cases, the question is not whether retraction is permitted, since it always is, but how far retraction reduces the confession's weight. The answer from the Appellate Division is consistent: retraction does not by itself reduce the weight of a confession that is proved voluntary and true, but it obliges the court to examine voluntariness and truth with care.

Retraction does not erase a true and voluntary confession

In Md Abdul Mannan v State (Jail Appeals 3 and 4 of 2015, judgment of 21 October 2020) the Appellate Division relied on State v Abdul Kader alias Mobile Kader, 67 DLR (AD) 6, for the proposition that a confession found true and voluntary can form the basis of conviction even if retracted, so far as the maker is concerned. It went further and held that such a confession can found the conviction without further corroboration.[5] The High Court Division has relied on Zakir Hossain v State, 55 DLR 137, to the same effect.[10]

Timing of the retraction

In Abdul Mannan the accused retracted only when examined under section 342 at the close of the prosecution case, claiming torture and a promise that he would be made an approver. The Appellate Division noted that the investigating officer was never cross-examined on the alleged compulsion, and held that such delayed retraction "has no value in the eye of law" if the confession is found true and voluntary.[5]

In the professor murder case, retraction petitions filed about four months after the confessions did not prevent the court from accepting them.[6] The lesson for the defence is plain: a retraction should be lodged at the earliest opportunity, ideally through a written petition from jail, and the allegations must be put to the investigating officer and the recording magistrate in cross-examination.

When retracted confessions fail

The cases where retracted confessions fail share three features: unlawful detention before the confession, physical signs or records of ill-treatment, and a mismatch with the objective evidence. In State v Babul Miah, 63 DLR (AD) 10, the Appellate Division affirmed an acquittal where the judicial confessions had been recorded some three months after the event, were alleged to have been obtained by torture and intimidation, and the magistrate had not completed the required memorandum.[8]

On 21 January 2026, in State v Md Jafor (Death Reference 108 of 2018), the High Court Division acquitted two condemned prisoners. One had been held by the investigating officer for more than seventy-two hours before being produced to confess, without any remand order, which made his confession inadmissible on principles settled by the Appellate Division. Both confessions also contradicted each other and placed the killing inside a house when the inquest, sketch map and police report put it in a lane.[9]

Partly true but not voluntary

Between those poles sit confessions that are partly true but not voluntary. In State v Abul Kashem, 13 SCOB [2020] HCD 103, the accused had been beaten by villagers before arrest, the forwarding papers mentioned injuries and the magistrate made no inquiry into them. The High Court Division held that such confessions cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless corroborated by other evidence.[8] In practice, that is where most contested cases are decided: on whether independent evidence corroborates the confession.

Confession of a co-accused under section 30

A confession incriminating others is the most dangerous form of confessional evidence, because the maker has every incentive to minimise his own role and enlarge everyone else's. Section 30 allows the court to "take into consideration" a confession against a jointly tried co-accused, but it does not make it substantive evidence of the same quality as testimony on oath.[2]

The prudence rule

The Appellate Division's settled approach, restated in 2022 in Dr Miah Md Mohiuddin v State, 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1, is that a voluntary and true confession can be taken into consideration against a co-accused under section 30, but that as a matter of prudence and practice the court should not act on it to convict the co-accused without full and strong corroboration in material particulars, both as to the crime and as to his connection with it.[6] The confession is relevant against others only if the maker implicates himself as well as them and they are tried jointly.

The "crime control" exception

A year earlier, in Md Shukur Ali v State, 16 SCOB [2022] AD 62, decided on 18 August 2021, the Appellate Division took a markedly broader line in a gang rape and murder case. It held that a co-accused's confession can be used against non-confessing accused if corroborated by other direct or circumstantial evidence, and, on the facts, "for the purpose of crime control" even if there is "a little bit of corroboration".[7] It also drew adverse inferences from the non-confessing accused's long absconsion and silence.

The court described this as an approach for "rare instances" of heinous crime, and later Appellate Division authority returned to the strong corroboration rule.[6] [7] Prosecutors will cite Shukur Ali; defence counsel should confine it to its facts and rely on the prudence rule in Mohiuddin.

Practical consequences for the non-confessing accused

For an accused named only in someone else's confession, the defence strategy is to isolate the confession from the rest of the record. Even a true and voluntary confessional statement by the maker is not enough: the prosecution must point to independent evidence connecting him to the crime itself, not merely evidence that the crime occurred.[6] If the only link is the co-accused's statement, the case for a discharge at the charge stage, or an acquittal, is strong. Our guide to framing of charges in Bangladesh explains when to raise it.

How courts weigh different confessional statements

The table below summarises how retracted confession Bangladesh case law compares with the treatment of other forms of confessional evidence. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

Two points cut across every row. First, the burden stays on the prosecution to prove the confession voluntary, through the recording magistrate and the forwarding papers. Second, the more a case depends on a confessional statement, the more closely the appellate courts examine it, particularly where a death sentence is under review.

Remand, torture and confessions

Confessions and police remand are bound together. Most section 164 confessions are made after a spell of police custody, and in retracted confession Bangladesh litigation the allegations of torture almost always relate to that period. The detailed rules on remand, the fifteen-day cap and the hearing before the magistrate are covered in our guide to police remand in Bangladesh; this section focuses on how they affect a confessional statement.

The BLAST guidelines

In Bangladesh v BLAST, 8 SCOB [2016] AD 1, decided on 24 May 2016, the Appellate Division upheld the High Court Division's 2003 judgment in Writ Petition No. 3806 of 1998 and issued directions to police and magistrates.[11] Three points bear directly on confessions:

• No remand to extract a confession: ordering police custody in order to obtain a confession, or to verify a confession already recorded under section 164, is not justified.[11]
• Medical referral: where there is material that a person has been subjected to torture, the magistrate must refer him to a doctor and, if the medical evidence confirms torture, take cognizance of the offence on his own motion.[11]
• Accountability: a magistrate who believes an officer has acted contrary to law must proceed against that officer under section 220 of the Penal Code.[11]

The Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act 2013

The 2013 Act defines torture to include physical or mental harm inflicted to extract information or a confession. If a person tells a court he has been tortured, the court must record his statement at once and order a medical examination, with a female doctor for a female complainant, and the doctor must report within twenty-four hours.[12] War, political instability, emergency and superior orders are no defence. Torture carries at least five years' rigorous imprisonment or a fine of at least Tk 50,000, or both, plus Tk 25,000 compensation; torture causing death carries rigorous imprisonment for life or a fine of at least Tk 1 lakh, or both, plus Tk 2 lakh compensation.[12]

What the 2013 Act does not do

The Act contains no exclusionary rule of its own: it does not say that a confession obtained by torture is inadmissible.[12] Exclusion still comes from section 24 of the Evidence Act, from the voluntariness requirement in section 164 and from Article 35 of the Constitution.[1] [2] The Act's value to an accused is evidential. A statement recorded under section 4 and a contemporaneous medical report are the strongest proof that a later confession was not voluntary. The Penal Code also separately punishes causing hurt, and wrongful confinement, to extort a confession, under sections 330 and 348.[11]

Challenging a confession: a practical sequence

Whether the client is the accused who confessed or a co-accused named in the confession, the work starts long before the trial reaches its closing arguments. The following sequence reflects how we approach a retracted confession Bangladesh challenge, from the first days after arrest to the appeal.

Swipe or scroll →

If the trial court convicts on the confession, the same points are argued again in the appeal, where the appellate court reassesses voluntariness and truth on the whole record. See our guides to criminal appeals and criminal revision, and our overview of the criminal case process in Bangladesh for where each step fits.

Witness protection in Bangladesh: the gap in the law

The other side of the confession problem is the witness problem. Prosecutions that cannot rely on a confession depend on witnesses, and witnesses in Bangladesh are routinely threatened, pressured to settle or simply fail to appear. One commentator cites Narcotics Control Department figures showing that all accused were acquitted in 23,535 narcotics cases over twenty years, mainly because witnesses were not produced.[15]

No general witness protection statute

Bangladesh has no general witness protection law, and the absence of a witness protection statute is now one of the most criticised gaps in the criminal justice system.

The Law Commission reported on a proposed law to protect victims and witnesses of grave offences in 2006 and again in 2011, and the Law Ministry prepared a draft Witness Protection Act in 2011 that was never enacted.[15] [16] In Writ Petition No. 8769 of 2010, brought by the Bangladesh National Women Lawyers' Association, the High Court Division directed the government to legislate for victims and witnesses of sexual harassment; another bench directed a witness protection law in 2015; and a Witness Management Policy for subordinate courts and tribunals was drafted in 2017 with UNDP and the Supreme Court.[15]

As of September 2025, a BLAST researcher recorded that a dedicated law "has yet to be passed".[14] We have found no general witness protection bill among the laws enacted by the new Parliament in 2026. The protection that exists is piecemeal.

Women and children cases: section 32B and related protections

The most significant recent change came through the Women and Children Repression Prevention (Amendment) Ordinance 2025, now replaced by the Women and Children Repression Prevention (Amendment) Act 2026 (Act No. 85 of 2026). It inserted a new section 32B (32Kha) into the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain 2000.[13] Under it, the tribunal or magistrate may, on application or on its own motion, order protection or security for a complainant, victim or witness during investigation or trial. The tribunal may also order reasonable payment to witnesses for travel and lost time, and the government must allocate funds to each tribunal for that purpose.[13] [14]

The same reform package extended the ban in section 14 on publishing a victim's identity to cover photographs and online and social media publication, with up to two years' imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 1 lakh, or both. It permitted witnesses in remote areas to testify digitally with prior approval, and it allowed the tribunal to order protective custody outside prison, in government-designated safe places.[13] [14] Critics note that digital testimony is not extended to vulnerable witnesses such as children, and that a proposal to bar disclosure of information identifying vulnerable witnesses was not adopted.[14]

The International Crimes Tribunal

The International Crimes Tribunal has its own regime. Rule 58A of the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2010 allows the tribunal to order the authorities to protect witnesses and victims; the process is confidential and the other side is not notified, and the government must provide accommodation on request and escorts to the courtroom.[16] Our analysis of the 2025 International Crimes Tribunal amendments covers the tribunal's wider procedure.

Torture complainants and general criminal law

A complainant under the 2013 torture Act may petition the Sessions Court for security against the accused. The court issues seven days' notice, must decide within fourteen days, may make interim orders, and may order transfers or bar the accused from specified areas.[12] Outside these special regimes, a threatened witness relies on the general offence of criminal intimidation under section 503 of the Penal Code, and on penalties for threatening victims and witnesses in the anti-trafficking legislation.[15]

What courts and parties can do now

Without a witness protection statute, protection depends on applications made in the case itself. In practice the useful measures are: an early application for a witness's statement to be recorded by a magistrate under section 164, which preserves the evidence if the witness is later intimidated;[1] a security order under section 32B or the torture Act where those laws apply; an application to cancel the bail of an accused who threatens witnesses; and, where the threat comes from the police, a writ or a complaint to the court seized of the case. Each must be supported by evidence of the threat, such as call records, general diary entries and statements from neighbours.

Criminal Miscellaneous cases in the High Court Division

Many of the issues in this guide reach the High Court Division not by appeal but through a Criminal Miscellaneous case, the vehicle for applications filed in its criminal miscellaneous jurisdiction. Three uses dominate. First, an application under section 561A of the Code to quash proceedings that rest entirely on an inadmissible confession, or on a co-accused's confession with no corroboration; our guide to section 561A quashment explains the grounds and timing. Second, an application for bail under section 498 after refusal below, where the weakness of a retracted or uncorroborated confessional statement is often the core of the argument; see High Court bail in Bangladesh.

Third, stay orders. When the High Court Division issues a Rule in a quashing application, it commonly stays further proceedings in the trial court while the Rule is pending, which can halt a trial built on a contested confession. A stay is discretionary and time-limited, and it can be vacated if the trial is close to completion. For a wider view of the court's jurisdiction, see our guide to the High Court Division of Bangladesh.

Retracted confession Bangladesh: what to do and what to avoid

For an accused who has confessed, the critical window in any retracted confession Bangladesh case is the days immediately after the section 164 statement. A retraction made early, supported by a medical record, a jail admission register entry or a section 4 statement under the torture Act, will be taken seriously. A retraction first raised at the section 342 examination, years later, usually will not.[5] For a co-accused, the priority is to show that nothing independent corroborates the confession that names him.

Common mistakes include failing to cross-examine the recording magistrate and the investigating officer on the circumstances of the confession, ignoring the gap between arrest and production, and assuming that retracted confession Bangladesh law makes a withdrawn statement automatically worthless. It does not: courts weigh a true and voluntary confession seriously. A confession is defeated by showing that it was not voluntary or that the objective evidence contradicts it. If you or a family member face a case built on a confession, contact TRW early, before the evidence that proves how the statement was obtained is lost.

Frequently asked questions

What is a retracted confession in Bangladesh?

It is a confession, usually recorded by a magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the accused later withdraws, typically claiming it was obtained by torture, threat or inducement. The court then decides whether it was voluntary and true.[1] [5]

Can a person be convicted only on a confession?

Yes, the maker can be, if the court finds the confession both voluntary and true. The Appellate Division treats this as settled law, even where the confession is later retracted.[5] [6]

Does retracting a confession make it inadmissible?

No. Retraction requires the court to examine the confession carefully, but a true and voluntary confession remains usable against its maker. A retraction raised for the first time at the section 342 examination carries little weight.[5]

Is a confession made to the police admissible?

No. Section 25 of the Evidence Act bars proof of a confession made to a police officer, and section 26 bars a confession made in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a magistrate. Section 27 admits only information that leads to the discovery of a fact.[2]

Can a co-accused's confession be used against me?

Section 30 lets the court consider it if you are tried jointly for the same offence, but the Appellate Division requires full and strong corroboration in material particulars before acting on it against anyone other than the maker.[2] [6]

Does a procedural mistake by the magistrate destroy the confession?

Not necessarily. Section 533 of the Code allows the court to take evidence that the statement was duly made and admit it if the error has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits.[8]

Did the 2026 CrPC amendment change the confession rules?

No. Act No. 11 of 2026 added arrest safeguards and amended the remand provisions, but it did not amend sections 164, 342, 364 or 533.[3]

What should I do if I was tortured into confessing?

Tell the court at the first opportunity. Under the 2013 torture Act the court must record your statement and order a medical examination, with a report due within twenty-four hours. File a written retraction promptly and keep every medical and jail record.[12]

Is there a witness protection law in Bangladesh?

There is no general statute. Draft laws were prepared from 2006 onwards but not enacted. Protection exists only under particular laws, such as section 32B of the women and children law, the 2013 torture Act and the International Crimes Tribunal rules.[13] [15] [16]

What is a Criminal Miscellaneous case?

It is how an application in the High Court Division's criminal miscellaneous jurisdiction is registered, most commonly for quashing proceedings under section 561A or for bail under section 498, often with an interim stay of the trial while the Rule is pending.