A citizen regretted her vote. Why did she end up in jail?

When thieves repeatedly target a business, police are expected to investigate and bring those responsible to justice. But in Bhaluka, Mymensingh, this week, it was the business owner who ended up behind bars.

Sathi Akter has been running her business for nearly 14 years. Last month, thieves stole electrical wires from one of her shops. On October 25, wires were stolen again from two showrooms. Other nearby businesses had reportedly suffered similar thefts. Frustrated by the repeated losses, she went live on Facebook and said she regretted voting for the BNP government.

Her remarks angered local BNP activists, who gathered outside her business. Police later intervened, took her into custody and produced her before a magistrate the following day. She was sent to jail.

Today, a Mymensingh court granted her bail on a Tk 500 bond, and she was released from the court lock-up later in the afternoon. But her release does not answer the question at the heart of this incident.

And what happened to the thieves?

That question has received surprisingly little attention. Instead, the focus has shifted to Sathi’s remarks, the anger of ruling-party supporters and whether her subsequent behaviour warranted police intervention. A complaint about repeated thefts has become a controversy over political criticism.

The police have offered an explanation. Bhaluka Model Police Station Officer-in-Charge Mohammad Zahidul Islam said he watched her videos four times and found nothing in her remarks about the government that warranted action. He said, however, that she had behaved aggressively towards some traders, creating tension. Police arrested her under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a preventive measure.

That explanation deserves scrutiny. What exactly constituted "aggressive behaviour"? Was it an argument, a heated exchange or a threat of violence? These are not the same. Nor does anger alone justify preventive arrest. Section 151, as we understand it, allows preventive arrest when police know of a plan to commit a cognisable offence and believe it cannot otherwise be prevented.

There is another point worth considering. A woman who has repeatedly lost property and money may understandably lose her temper. She may blame the government, even when the immediate responsibility lies with the thieves. Her words may be harsh, emotional or unfair. But does that make her frustration any less deserving of attention?

Frustration, of course, cannot excuse threats or violence. But neither should every angry citizen be treated as a potential criminal. The responsibility of law enforcement is not simply to restore calm. It is also to understand what caused the disturbance and respond appropriately.

In Bhaluka, local BNP leaders and activists gathered outside Sathi’s business because they objected to her remarks. Their presence contributed to the tension, yet she was the one arrested. If the situation threatened to turn violent, protecting her business and addressing the actions of those contributing to the confrontation should also have been police priorities.

Meanwhile, the original allegations of theft remain largely unexplored in the public account. Were complaints lodged? Did police investigate? Were suspects identified or stolen property recovered? We do not yet know. It would be unfair to conclude that police did nothing without establishing these facts. But these questions deserve as much attention as the controversy surrounding her Facebook videos.

There are reasons why ordinary people may be frustrated with law enforcement. In September, attackers looted and demolished the Radda health centre in Mirpur while police were present. A preliminary investigation found that officers had failed to intervene effectively. The local officer-in-charge was withdrawn, and several suspects were subsequently arrested.

The broader picture is also concerning. A police committee reviewing crime data from 2021 to May 2026 recorded an annual average of 9,178 thefts and 2,733 burglaries. Behind these figures are thousands of people who have lost property, suffered financial hardship or become concerned about their security.

These figures do not establish police negligence in Bhaluka. They do, however, show why public complaints about crime must be taken seriously. For a small business owner, repeated thefts mean repair costs, lost earnings and uncertainty. When security appears inadequate, anger is hardly unexpected.

Voting for a political party does not mean surrendering the right to question its performance. Sathi expressed frustration over repeated thefts and blamed the government she had supported. Others may disagree with her criticism, but that does not justify intimidating her or demanding police action against her. The government’s responsibility is to address citizens’ grievances, not shield itself from their anger.

Bangladesh has experienced the consequences of treating criticism as a threat to political authority. During the Awami League’s rule, criminal laws were repeatedly used against critics, and the BNP itself condemned those practices. The principle it defended while in opposition should not lose its meaning now that the party is in government.

The BNP leadership should make clear that its activists have no authority to police what citizens say about the party. Rather than confronting a woman over her remarks, local leaders could have sought to understand her grievances and find out what action had been taken over the thefts.

The larger concern is the relationship between citizens and the state. People approach the authorities expecting protection, not political approval. If expressing frustration becomes a source of anxiety, citizens may hesitate to complain, and public confidence in law enforcement will suffer.

Sathi’s case should concern us beyond the circumstances of her arrest. It raises a broader question: are the authorities paying enough attention to the problems that make ordinary people angry in the first place?

A change of government means little if the state remains more responsive to political sensitivities than to the grievances of its citizens.

Arafat Rahaman is a journalist at The Daily Star. He covers education and writes on governance, rights and public accountability. He can be reached at [email protected].