Thereafter, Partha was also shown arrested in a bomb blast case and in connection with that case, the accused was once again taken on police remand. The court held that the accused had already been remanded in custody twice, by the police, yet there is nothing before the court to show the outcome of such remand. The court directed respondents not to go for further remand of the accused and in the case of the ongoing remand, he should not be subjected to physical torture of any kind. In the case of Hafizuddin vs. the State,18 the Magistrate did not issue warnings before recording confessions and did not give time for reflection. In this case, the Magistrate was held liable for failing to inform the accused that they would not be sent to police custody after making confessional statements. In the case of State vs Abul Hashem19 the court held that when the accused was kept in police custody for two days, it was the duty of the Magistrate,who recorded their confession, to put questions as to how they were treated in the police station, why they were making confessions and that if they made a confession or not, whether they would be remanded in police custody. Further, it is found in the record that the Magistrate did not inform the accused persons that he was not a police officer but a Magistrate. The Court held: “On scrutnity, we find in the record that magistrate sent the accused persons to the police custody after 18 19 34 42 DLR (1990) (HCD)p. 397. 50 DLR (1998)(HCD) p 17.