We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
District Public Prosecutor's Office of Kathmandu has acquitted the leader of the ruling UML, Mohan Bahadur Bista, who was arrested on charges of fraud in land transactions. Although the Kathmandu police submitted an investigation report with the opinion that a case should be prosecuted for fraud, the public prosecutor's office did not file a case in court and left Bista in normal attendance.
Rajendra Koirala of Tarakeshwar Municipality-8 filed a complaint at District Police Complex Kathmandu against 4 people including Bista for defrauding about 80 million rupees. The police arrested Bista on December 27 and investigated. On Tuesday (January 8), the police submitted the report along with the opinion to the district attorney's office. But the public prosecutor's office did not prosecute the case according to the investigation report.
Public Prosecutor's Office Kathmandu Chief Kamu Co-Attorney Ramhari Sharma Kafle said that the appearance has been postponed due to the fact that both parties have entered into a settlement agreement. "In this fraud, the case can be closed with a settlement agreement, that's why the victim was released in court, there is no malice in it."
Another officer of the Public Prosecutor's Office said that the leaders of the ruling party were under pressure not to proceed with the case. According to the police report, the case against the accused has to go to court, but why is it, a letter has been sent to the police to drop it at the time of appearance,' he said Elected Bista Bagi became a candidate in Kathmandu-5 (1) after not getting a ticket from UML in the 2079 state assembly elections.
District Attorney Uday Chandra Adhikari wrote a letter to the police to release Bista in court. In the letter, it was claimed that 'even if he left the presence, he did not destroy the evidence'. A police officer said that it is wrong to leave the accused with the claim that the evidence will not be destroyed when the accused is released from custody when the demand for imprisonment and fine is taken as per the Criminal Code.
'It is not good to decide in favor of the accused after the investigation by the police, ignoring the report submitted for prosecution, it automatically raises questions about the fairness of the government,' the police officer said, 'The government attorney's office should have decided not to proceed with the case, because the investigation was insufficient. The report should have been returned or the case should have been filed in the court as per the demand.'
Koirala along with himself and Kamal Bahadur Ale as partners Bista had mentioned in the complaint that he had given permission to buy the land shown by him, but later did not return the permission and committed fraud. Bishta had taken permission from Koirala to sell the land of lot number 191, 189, 141, 142, 124, 125, 126 and 100 of former Kathmandu Dharamsthali Gavis-1 (now Tarakeshwar municipality). He initially took 5 crore, later 1 crore 97 lakh Baina.
According to Koirala, 2 million 10 million was spent on land maintenance and wall construction. Koirala knew that he had been cheated when it was revealed that the land was involved in a dispute while Bishta was about to do the naming. It has been revealed that Mohan Bahadur Bista along with his brother Ravit Bista, Sulochana Kandel of Kathmandu Tarakeshwar and Shanti Pathak who lives in Tarakeshwar (Manmaiju) with the connivance of selling the disputed land. Koirala filed a police complaint against the four. Apart from Mohan Bahadur, 3 people were absconding. In the
police report, it is stated that "Koirala has cheated four people of 78.7 million by deducting 12 million from other persons and it has been confirmed that this act has committed the offense of fraud defined in sub-section 1 and 2 of section 249 of the Civil Code". is.
