Tanzina Fardoush
Commissioning Editor, The Oniket Bulletin
Bangladesh’s justice system faces a hard question: how long must families wait for final answers?
From the unresolved murder of Sohagi Jahan Tonu to the prolonged Sagar–Runi investigation and the unimplemented verdicts in the Narayanganj seven-murder case, delays persist. On 7 June 2026, a Dhaka tribunal sentenced a couple to death for the rape and murder of eight-year-old Ramisa Akter just 19 days after the crime, showing that courts can act swiftly when investigation, prosecution and trial proceed smoothly. Yet one fast verdict cannot hide a deeper institutional failure.
Across the country, families wait years, even decades, for investigations to conclude and appeals to be resolved. The real issue is why the process so often fails to deliver a timely, credible and legal outcome.
The long road from verdict to justice
The murder of Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology student Abrar Fahad illustrates the distance between a trial court’s verdict and the completion of the judicial process. Abrar was beaten to death in October 2019. In December 2021, a speedy trial tribunal sentenced 20 people to death and five others to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the sentences in March 2025, but the subsequent appeals process left the case facing another stage of judicial scrutiny.
The case illustrates a wider institutional challenge. A death sentence in Bangladesh must be referred to the High Court for confirmation under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appeals, jail appeals, the preparation of paper books, legal representation and further judicial review can extend proceedings considerably.
These safeguards are essential. Capital punishment is irreversible, and the legal system must ensure that every conviction withstands scrutiny. Yet procedural protection should not become a justification for indefinite delay. The challenge is to preserve due process while improving case management, digitising records, ensuring adequate judicial staffing and establishing realistic timelines for each stage of proceedings.
Sagar–Runi: When investigation itself becomes the delay
The murders of journalists Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi, killed at their rented West Rajabazar home in Dhaka on 11 February 2012 while their young son was inside, remain one of Bangladesh’s most persistent investigative failures. Over fourteen years, the case has passed through the Detective Branch, the Rapid Action Battalion and, after the High Court ordered a high-powered task force in September 2024, the Police Bureau of Investigation.
On 30 September 2026, a Dhaka court postponed the report submission deadline for the 130th time, setting 5 November as the next date. Each extension raises questions about investigative planning, evidence preservation, institutional accountability and judicial supervision. A deadline matters only if missing it demands a substantive explanation and corrective action.
Reports of a possible lead from call-detail records in another case show the value of digital evidence, but also prompt a troubling question: why did it emerge so late? The case establishes no one’s guilt. It shows the public cost of an investigation that has produced no conclusive legal outcome for so long.
Sohagi Jahan Tonu: A decade without a final answer
The murder of Sohagi Jahan Tonu, a 19-year-old Cumilla Victoria Government College student and theatre activist, is another troubling example. Tonu disappeared on 20 March 2016 after going to a residence inside Cumilla Cantonment to tutor a student; her body was later found in bushes near the cantonment’s powerhouse.
A decade on, the investigation remains active but without conviction. In May 2026, investigators reported DNA findings indicating biological material from four men on her clothing, a renewed forensic avenue, though identifying profiles and establishing criminal responsibility are separate tasks. In April 2026, the Police Bureau of Investigation arrested retired army warrant officer Hafizur Rahman, and in September, Interpol issued Red Notices for two other former army personnel.
These steps show investigative activity has not ceased, but also how long it took for forensics, suspect identification and international cooperation to become central. An arrest, DNA comparison or Red Notice does not prove guilt; that requires lawful proceedings and admissible evidence. The case raises questions about timely forensic analysis, agency coordination and accountability. For Tonu’s family, each development brings hope, but no substitute for a final, credible judicial outcome.
Narayanganj’s seven murders: Verdicts are not the end
The abduction and murder of seven people in Narayanganj in April 2014, including City Corporation panel mayor Nazrul Islam and lawyer Chandan Sarkar, exposed the consequences of organised violence and alleged abuse of institutional power. Their bodies were recovered from the Shitalakshya River.
In January 2017, a trial court sentenced 26 people to death. In August 2017, the High Court upheld 15 death sentences, commuted 11 to life imprisonment and upheld other prison terms. Yet as of April 2026, the appeals process remained incomplete, and no verdicts had been carried out.
Twelve years on, families still face uncertainty. The case shows the gap between a judicial verdict and the final implementation of a sentence: a conviction and appellate review can leave the legal process unfinished for years.
It also underlines the need for accountability when allegations involve people tied to powerful institutions. Public confidence depends on consistent application of the law, which requires independent investigation of powerful suspects, protected evidence and appeals completed without unnecessary delay.
Nusrat Jahan Rafi: When a verdict still requires years of review
The murder of Nusrat Jahan Rafi, a madrasa student from Sonagazi in Feni, exposed the dangers faced by people who report sexual harassment and the need to protect complainants from intimidation. In April 2019, she was set on fire after refusing to withdraw a harassment complaint against her madrasa principal, and she died of her injuries. In October 2019, a trial court sentenced 16 people to death.
In August 2026, after the death-reference and appellate process, the High Court upheld two death sentences, commuted four to life imprisonment and acquitted ten of those sentenced to death.
The ruling shows why appellate review matters: the system must assess the evidence against each accused individually. Yet the seven-year gap between the crime and the High Court’s decision highlights the need for a more efficient appellate process, especially in cases of serious violence against women and children. The goal is not to preserve every trial court sentence, but to ensure convictions, acquittals and sentences emerge from a process that is both thorough and timely.
Salman Shah: Three decades of unanswered questions
The death of actor Salman Shah in September 1996 remains a contested, high-profile case. The CID concluded in 1997 that it was suicide, a 2003 judicial inquiry followed, and the Police Bureau of Investigation reached the same conclusion in 2020, findings his family disputed. In October 2025, a sessions court accepted the family’s revision petition and ordered the matter treated as murder; later steps included a case naming 11 accused and permission to exhume his remains for a fresh autopsy.
Allegations are not proof, and reclassifying a case does not establish that murder occurred. Yet when an investigation stays contested for decades, public confidence depends on transparent procedures, credible examination of evidence and clearly explained conclusions, not repeated inquiries.
While pausing this week’s discussion to the media hyped sensational cases for which a verdict has been delivered or in process, in part 2 we will discuss our analysis on these.
