Case Law On Suicides Linked To Cyber Bullying In Bangladesh
1. Aritry Adhikary (Viqarunnisa school‑Dhaka)
Facts:
A ninth‑grader at Viqarunnisa Noon School & College (VNSC) in Dhaka, Aritry’s body was found hanging from a ceiling fan in her home (Shantinagar, Dhaka) on 3 December 2018.
According to the father’s complaint, earlier that day the school had accused her of cheating in an exam using a mobile phone; she and her parents were called to the school, and her parents were allegedly insulted by the teachers. This trauma, the case alleges, “instigated” her to suicide.
On 28 March 2019 the investigating officers submitted a charge‑sheet against two teachers of the school (the acting principal, Nazneen Ferdous; and the morning‑shift in‑charge, Zinat Akhtar).
On 25 July 2024 a Dhaka court ordered a fresh investigation via the Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI) into the case. Dhaka Tribune
The court set the judgment date for 21 Jan 2024.
Legal issues:
The accused are charged under Section 306 of the Bangladesh Penal Code (abetment of suicide) for “instigating” the student to kill herself.
Though not purely a “cyber‑bullying” case (i.e., digital social media harassment), it involves harassment + insult + school authority pressures. The digital‑component is minimal (the cheating charge involved mobile phone), but the case is often cited in Bangladesh when discussing bullying in schools, suicide and legal liability.
Demonstrates that courts recognise “provocation/insult by authority figure” as possible ground for abetment of suicide.
Significance:
This is one of the more clearly documented cases in Bangladesh of a student’s suicide linked to harassment/insult by school personnel.
It shows the law’s route (charge‐sheet, trial, fresh investigation) but also delays and uncertainty.
Because it is not centred on “online bullying” it does not perfectly map to your “cyber‑bullying” criterion, but is close in the bullying/harassment → suicide chain.
2. Shipra Debnath (Cyberbullying by police officers)
Facts:
Shipra, a student of Stamford University Bangladesh, alleged that personal photographs of hers were posted by senior police officers on Facebook with provocative comments undermining her character.
She filed a writ petition in the Bangladesh High Court seeking action; the HC rejected the petition on procedural grounds (it said the petition was not properly placed).
Legal issues:
This is a clearer “cyberbullying” incident (online posting, misuse of social media) though there was no suicide publicly reported in this case (that we found).
It illustrates the gap: although she alleged online harassment, the legal route via HC had limitations (procedural), and the rights aspect (character assassination online) was recognised but not fully adjudicated at the HC.
Does not meet your “suicide” requirement, so it is useful for legal context but not a full match.
3. Situation of “cyber‑bullying” academically reported
Facts & commentary:
An academic article notes: “In contravention of this Article … The root cause of suicide is known. Cyberbullying is connected to teen suicide.”
Another study of high‑school students in Bangladesh finds cyberbullying prevalence among 13‑18 year‑olds, identifies risk factors, but does not tie fully to documented suicide judgments.
Legal issues / significance:
These studies point out: although cyber‑bullying is prevalent and linked to mental health and suicidal ideation, there are very few (if any) reported judgments in Bangladesh where suicide has directly been found to have been caused by “cyberbullying” and legal liability established.
This gap shows that while bullying/harassment and suicide are recognised, the digital/online component is under‑litigated or under‑published.
4. Summary of Legal Framework in Bangladesh
Relevant laws:
Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006 (ICT Act) regulated digital offences (online defamation, false posts).
Digital Security Act, 2018 supplanted many ICT Act powers and includes provisions on digital harassment, publication of obscene/false information etc. (though “cyber‑bullying” per se is not well‑defined).
The penal code includes Section 306 (abetment of suicide) which is used in cases where harassment or provocation leads to suicide.
Key observations:
The law recognises online offences, publication of false/obscene materials, intimidation, etc. But courts rarely appear to have full‑blown “cyberbullying → suicide” judgments where the online harassment was the primary cause and liability fully determined.
Academic commentary states “Before the court … until today, there are no cyberbullying cases had been prosecuted and brought to the court [with suicide link]”.
Hence there's a legal gap and a need for more case‑law development.
5. Additional Note: Limited but Emerging Cases
While I couldn’t find four or five full judgments, note these points:
The Aritry case (above) is a school‑harassment → suicide case (though not purely digital).
There are cyber‑bullying complaints (like Shipra) where online act is central, but suicide is not involved or publicly reported.
The academic research indicates many teens in Bangladesh experiencing cyber‑bullying, and suicidal ideation is linked, but the chain to legal liability is less developed.
This suggests a pressing need for the courts in Bangladesh to establish more judgments where online bullying is shown to lead to suicide, thereby clarifying liability (e.g., abetment of suicide, digital harassment).
✅ Conclusion
At present, Bangladesh has very few publicly available judgments where suicide is directly tied to cyber‑bullying (i.e., online harassment) and where the court has fully parsed legal liability.
The strongest case for suicide linked to bullying is the Aritry Adhikary case (school harassment) though the online component is minimal.
The Shipra Debnath case illustrates online harassment but no suicide link.
Academic research underscores cyber‑bullying’s risk and prevalence, but law‑and‑judgment development lags.
RELATED Blog
0 comments