Authored By: Md. Salmun Alam
East West University
1. Abstract:
As the world has progressed, the voices of the critics and scholars have enlightened the matter of crimes occurring from various aspects of life. The religious aspect is no different. For a very long time, this has been a sensitive yet important issue. As this needs proper discussion and the process had to maintain a critical line of thought so that no party takes it otherwise.
The aim of human beings should be to achieve salvation, but should some other person be sacrificed for the cause of my success, should I be granted to do so or not, and should I be punished or not. These are some questions that have been tried to answer in this paper. At least this would instigate us to think about the matter once again.
2. Introduction:
Crime has no religion, but it seems that in different countries the concept is perceived differently on the surface, although it is the same in the core. The problem, rather than being the crime itself, is that people avoid talking about such an act and thus justify it tacitly. It works as some type of taboo, whether it be called a social taboo or religious taboo.
2.1. Religious Sanctity & Crime:
Religion is based on a belief system that demands the utmost submission in front of the God. This is the basic idea of religion and in most cases, it creates a moral basis for people which is good. As per the Oxford definition of “Holiness” it means the quality of being holy or a title of respect used when talking to or about the Pope and some other religious leaders. Sociologically, the term is also understood as the same.
Any human conduct that violates criminal law and is subject to punishment can be called a crime in a broad sense. The same if done under the name of any religion even then it should be considered a crime, nothing more or nothing less. And those who are perpetrators of such an act must be considered criminals regardless of their religion.
Many of the time religious sanctity is misused to either support a crime or hide it from the world. This can be considered the loophole created for allowing those acts. It is allowed in different situations, such as gaining political support, convincing the mass of people, etc. Sometimes the act can be used to gain favor of the world by simply putting on a show of a dummy trial, which actually does not change the scenario as a whole.
Those people who commit criminal acts in the name of religion and think that they are the just ones when they are not, I have come up with a term named- “Holy Criminals.” These people actually commit the act of terrorism in the name of religious sanctity or obligation.
3. Constitutional Perspective:
Article 7 provides the supremacy of the Constitution in Bangladesh, and Article 8 states the fundamental principles of the Constitution. These four fundamental principles were nationalism, socialism, democracy, and secularism. At first glance it seems that we have achieved all 4 of them, but the harsh truth is that they have become our fundamental principles in pen and paper only. Because the occurrences that sometimes take place in our country question the implications of such principles. It would be wrong to say that we are not trying to implement the same. But the question remains how successful we have become in this regard. Article 12 suggested that there will be secularism and freedom of religion, and this has been strengthened by Article 41 which further elaborates on the freedom of religion. This when read with Article 27 and 31 mentioning respectively about “Equality before law” & “Right to protection of law” makes us understand that all are immune in terms of their religious expression.
Until now it seems that we have unfettered rights but it’s not quite real as there is “Reasonable Restrictions” which can be imposed by the state. Absolute or unchecked fundamental rights do not and cannot exist in any modern state because of the disappearance of laissez fare and the emergence of the welfare states. It can be done to protect public order, morality, and health, etc.
4. Freedom of Religion & Restriction of The Freedom:
The Dewanbagh Darbar Sharif case can be treated as an example of both freedom of religion and reasonable restriction. The case revolves around the clash that arose between the Dewanbagh Devotees and the Islami Shashantantra Andolan of the Pir Shaheb Charmonai. The sufism practiced by Dewanbaghis was anti islamic in the eye of the Pir Shaheb. In 1999 this clash broke out these two factions in order to take possession of the Dewanbagh premises. Several casualties and damage to govt. and private properties could be seen unless police took control and drove away the rival factions.
4.1. The Restriction: The place was restricted for the purpose of public tranquility and safety. It seemed reasonable unless a writ petition was brought by the Pir of Dewanbagh. They argued that- they had the aconstitutional right to practise their religion as per Article 41 and thus there was a vioilation of their rights. The facts showed that the place was restricted for about 2.5 years.
4.2. Time Factor:
Cout pointed to the matter and stated that the restriction can be put in place to control the situtaion, but it has to be temporary in nature, not a permanent one. The reason is that when the restriction becomes permanent, it would amount to a ban. So, the restriction upon that place for two and a half years was not reasonable. Thus, the restriction was lifted, and the executives were given orders to take different measures.
5. Analysis of Recent Incident:
Dipu was a resident of Tarakanda upazila in Mymensingh district and worked at the Pioneer Knit Composite Factory situated in Bhaluka Upazila. His full name was Dipu Chandra Das, aged 27 years old.
The incident took place on the night of 19/12/2025, at his workplace. As per local media reports, the chaos started based on an allegation about Dipu that he had made derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This allegation spread instantaneously within the nearby localities and instigated unrest in that area.
According to local residents and eyewitnesses, and a daily named Barta Bazar reported that Dipu was assaulted by a mob and died on the spot. After his death, the situation reportedly escalated further. The crowd allegedly took the body to the Square Masterbari bus stand area, tied it to a tree, and continued to assault it while shouting slogans. The body was then set on fire. It was later taken to the Dhaka–Mymensingh highway and burned again, causing traffic disruption and fear among commuters.
Bhaluka Upazila Executive Officer Md Firoz Hossain confirmed the incident and said a person had been killed following allegations of insulting the Prophet (PBUH). He added that the body is currently in police custody. Officials have not yet shared details regarding arrests or further legal action. Security in the area has since been tightened.
6. Observation:
Every citizen, irrespective of their religious identity, is equal before the law as per the Constitution. The selective violence or mob justice violates the constitutional equality under Article 27. The incident shows that the executive authorities have failed to uphold the law-and-order situation. The Constitution itself gives the right to life under Article 32 and the protection of such under Article 31.
6.1. International Prospects:
Bangladesh ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 2000, which obligates the country to follow some measures. Bangladesh has the duty to protect rights without discrimination under Article 2 of the ICCPR. As the ICCPR guarantees the right to life under Article 6 and prohibits torture and cruel treatment under Article 7.
Bangladesh has endorsed the UDHR and is politically and morally bound to uphold its principles. Under Article 3, it gives the right to life, liberty, and security, and under Article 7, it ensures equality before the law. Again, the UN Minority Rights Declaration provides the obligation to protect minorities from violence. It is to be borne in mind that when domestic law fails to protect life, international law records failure.
6.2. Extrajudicial Act:
The Constitution guarantees the protection of life and liberty in accordance with the law. But the mob justice amounts to extrajudicial execution and thus is illegal. Article 41 demonstrates freedom of religion; however, it does not permit “extrajudicial killing.” It was designed to protect the belief, not to encourage violent enforcement of the same.
6.3. Penology:
The perpetrators of such an act can be charged with many penal sections, such as section 300, which defines murder, while section 302 provides punishment for murder and sections 435 & 436 for mischief by fire. Even if the intention for murder is not proven, it can fall under section 304 for culpable homicide. The people supporting such a heinous act can be brought under sections 34 & 149 for common intention and unlawful assembly. Those who helped in the act fall under section 107 for abetment of the thing and can be punished under section 109 for such an act.
7. Social Impact:
The impact of religious heads or leaders on our society is quite heavy. It can be seen through various stages of society. Like the discouragement of women education, women employment and the encouragement of child marriage or early marriage of women. Recent occurrences can be put forward; for example, about 20,000 supporters of the Islamist organization rallied in the streets of Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, to protest, among other issues, proposed government reforms to support gender equality and women’s rights. The protesters claimed men and women can never be equal and opposed reforms recommended by the country’s Women’s Affairs Reform Commission. Bangladesh had reported the third-highest prevalence of child marriage in the world and the highest in South Asia. One in two women aged 20–24 reported being married before the age of 18 in Bangladesh. The religious leaders can actually help build the society into a more progressive one if we can make them understand our vision.
8. Recommendation:
The prosecution faces a challenge in this type of case, and the reasons are- social pressure, fear of backlash, political patronage, and evidentiary issues. In order to ensure justice, we must eradicate these problems. This is a law-and-order and constitutional matter. And for the purpose of ensuring justice, the court must be blind to identity. We need to reaffirm our rules of law. Lastly, we must raise awareness and accountability to ensure a just and safe nation.
