offences specified in this section in an open street which may annoy, cause trouble or difficulties or create hindrance to the people, any police official may arrest without warrant.28 This broad power provide an opportunity to use torture. . 28. There are a number of special criminal laws which also contributes to culture of torture. The most infamous piece of special law is the Special Power Act, 1974 under which a person can be ‘preventively detained’ by the executive, i.e., detailed to prevent that person from committing any prejudicial act, which the administration deems detrimental to the interest of the state. The most important power conferred by this Act is that a person can be detained if the government ‘suspects’ that he is about to commit a ‘prejudicial act’, though the individual has not yet committed such an act. It is well recognised that the formulation of the eight prejudicial acts as laid down in section 2(f)(i) of the Special Act is of a generalised nature, enabling the government to include almost any conceivable act or suspicion within the ambit of one or the other of these formulations. It is common for persons arrested under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are later charged under the Special Powers Act 1974. 29. The other special laws include the Acid Control Act, 2002 and the Acid Offenses Act, 2002, which were enacted apparently to ensure protect public safety. The Law and Order Contravening Offenses (Speedy Trial) Act, 2002 and the Speedy Trial Tribunal Act, 2002 are two special laws enacted for ensuring speedy disposal of certain criminal cases. These special laws define offence in very broad and ambiguous manner, impose harsh punishment to solve ‘law and order’ situation and give the police wide and arbitrary power to arrest and detain people and deny the right to appeal for release on bail.29 However, the notion of public protection by harsh punishment is not supported either by principle or evidence of effectiveness. The Mobile Court Act 2009 which empowers executive magistrates to hold trials, has no provision of bail. As a result, accused is sent to jail if they fail to instantly pay the monetary fine imposed by the mobile courts under section 9(2) of this Act. Instant execution of sentence of imprisonment in case of the offenders' failure to instantly pay the fine imposed by the mobile courts very often results in violation of human rights. Section 9 (2) of the Mobile Court Act 2009 also runs counter to section 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Section 388 empowers a court to order for payment of monetary fine in installments if an offender cannot pay it instantly. The court can even release him temporarily on bond. e. having in possesion implement of house breaking without satisfactory reason. Identical provisions are found in other Metropolitan Ordinances. 28 Any person if he commits any of such offices: - If any domestic animal is slaughtered, skinning or riding on horse recklessly or rearing animals in an open place; - Torturing animal viciously and unkindly in open; - Unnecessarily parking car or other vehicles, which causes trouble and difficulties for the passer-by; - Piling goods for sale in open space; - Throwing or depositing garbage in the street or using the roadside for making stable and other factory which creates odour of cow dung and other muck; - Roaming in the streets in drunken condition or insane condition; - Wandering around the streets without clothes or urinating on the streets or exhibiting any physical disability or any painful disease or using any restricted pond for washing clothes and having bath; - If any pond, well or other water source which is unsafe is kept uncovered. 29 Shahdeen Malik, ‘Laws of Bangladesh’, in: A.M. Chowdhury &Fakrul Alam, (ed.), Bangladesh on the threshold of the Twenty-First Century, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka (2002), p. 446. 15