Bharat Gurung, the bodyguard of King Birendra's younger brother, Prince Dhirendra, was considered very powerful in the 1940s. He was a major general in the then Royal Nepalese Army. He was accused of using his closeness to the court for political gain.

He was accused of involvement in the murder industry, drug trafficking, illegal foreign exchange trading, arms smuggling, gold and watch smuggling. He was arrested in 2044 BS on the same charge.

Journalist Padam Thakurathi was shot dead at his residence in Baneshwor on Bhadra 21, 2043. Bharat was also accused of involvement in the shooting incident. The diary found by the police mentioned that Bharat helped Thakurathi by taking Rs 40,000 from Jagat Gauchan, who was accused of being involved in an 'underground gang' that carried out anarchic activities during the Panchayat period.

The police recovered white and brown heroin and 90 pistol bullets from Bharat's house. The then police officer Achyut Krishna Kharel mentioned in his autobiography that Bharat helped transport/distribute gold to meet the expenses of Adhirajkumar Dhirendra. Kharel had taken Bharat's statement. Kharel has retired from the post of Inspector General of Police.

After his arrest, a general military court was formed and Bharat was court-martialed. The military court found him guilty and sentenced him to 20 years in prison and a large fine. The military court was sent to jail after giving him a long sentence in a drug case. He was also found to be ineligible for government service in the future.

Bharat was seen to have purchased 128 ropanis and 8 anas of land in the valley in the name of his wife Mankumari, son, daughter-in-law, daughter, and relatives. The CIAA had confiscated Bharat's property saying that he had earned it illegally. Bharat had admitted in court that all the property belonged to him.

On 11 Asoj 2044, the military court had ruled that all of the land, except for 4 ropanis of land in Bansbari and the house built on it, would be nationalized. The land was found to have been earned illegally by Bharat. Civilians accused Bharat of inciting him to smuggle gold, and Iman Singh Gurung was also arrested. Bharat and six of his relatives were arrested. They were accused of hiding Bharat's property.

Iman Singh's wife Dhankumari, who was prosecuted along with Bharat, had filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, saying that a civilian could not be prosecuted by a military court. The Supreme Court had ruled on Bhadra 5, 2049 that a military court could not prosecute Iman Singh. Based on the same ruling, six of Bharat's relatives had petitioned Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala on Bhadra 13, 2049 for the return of the property.

The property of Bharat's relatives was returned on the basis of the petition filed by the military court, saying that the property owner had not even been made a defendant and the Supreme Court had ruled accordingly. After the government claimed that the decision to return the property was in accordance with the Supreme Court's order, the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament took a statement from the then Chief Secretary Dr. Ishwar Prasad Upadhyay on 2053 Baisakh 4. Chief Secretary Upadhyay had given a statement that the property was returned based on the decision that civilians should not be allowed to serve in the military.

A committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary and Defense Secretary was formed after Gurung's relatives submitted a petition to the Prime Minister. Upadhyay had informed the Accounts Committee that the land was returned on the recommendation of the same high-level investigation committee formed by the then government. The committee members had demanded that all the documents be provided, saying that there was no official confirmation in the case. However, Chief Secretary Upadhyay had said that there was no written order from Prime Minister Girija Prasad regarding the return of the land. However, Upadhyay had stated that he was compelled not to provide the documents as the decision had to be kept secret, citing the Council of Ministers' Performance Regulations. But the committee members had assigned Deep Kumar Upadhyay, Bangchhe Sherpa and Bishnu Bahadur Raut to make arrangements to study all the documents. The committee members had said that there could be a mystery behind the silence of the alleged victims after 7 years of the case.

The then Panchayat government had seized Bharat's 128 ropani 8 anas of land in 2044 on the grounds that he had illegally acquired it. The Girija Prasad-led government had decided to return the land on Kartik 28, 2051, a day before the mid-term elections. The Koirala cabinet had not only returned the property, but also decided to recommend to the king on the same day to grant Bharat Gurung a general amnesty. Which was approved by King Birendra. Although the court approved the decision of general amnesty, it did not speak about the property. But a year and a half after the government decided to grant amnesty, a notice was published in the Gazette on Chaitra 21, 2052. However, the date of the government's decision to return the property was not mentioned in the Gazette.

The arrest of Bharat, a major commander accused of criminal activities and amassing unaccounted wealth while staying close to the palace, by the Panchayat government, the return of property in his and his relatives' names by the multi-party government, and the recommendation to the Raj to grant a general amnesty were the issues raised by the Accounts Committee. The news prepared by journalist Hari Bahadur Thapa focusing on the discussion in the Accounts Committee and the case filed against Bharat was published in Kantipur Daily on Baisakh 5, 2053 under the title 'How were the lands of Bharat Gurung's relatives returned?'.