A legal expert has analyzed that since the letter written by a minor employee with wrong intentions has caused great damage from the cleanliness of the court to the public trust in the criminal justice system, it cannot be corrected by the Supreme Court by issuing a statement.
On May 2, 2080, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's decision to sentence Resham Chaudhary to 20 years imprisonment, who was found to be the main planner of the Tikapur incident 10 years ago that killed eight people, including a minor. However, after 12 days, President Ramchandra Paudel granted amnesty in his case.
The petition filed by the victims of the Tikapur incident against the amnesty granted by the President to Chaudhary, who has been in jail for 6 years, is pending in the Supreme Court.
'How can the police directly imprison someone without the case being resolved?' As soon as he got the news of Chaudhary's arrest, a question arose in the mind of his legal practitioner Tika Bahadur Kunwar. And, he went directly to Dillibazar Jail where Chaudhary was kept.
There he found a letter written by Bishta and was shocked to read its details. "The letter was flawed at first glance," says Kunwar, "if the case pending in the Supreme Court was decided, the way the branch officer wrote the letter and the police opened the jail believing it, it was not legal from any point of view."
In the letter, Bishta said that Chaudhary was granted amnesty by the President 'so that the crime would be politicized', so there is a writ against him and it will continue. M.No. 079-WO-1337 in the transfer case, the full bench of this court or the constitutional full bench will take the necessary action by the judgment as soon as possible and M.No. 980-DH-0026 Petitioner Bharti Sherpa Respondent Office of the President Shitalnivas Kathmandu, Regal Dhakal, the case was decided on 2080/07/16, judicial action will be taken following Nazir's prisoner bail and after that decision Mr. Kailali will be re-released from the District Court, the defendant will be kept in prison by paying direct costs according to the rules as per the request of this court dated 2080/02/02 '
The language, manner and style of sending the letter did not match the rules and after the police arrested Chaudhary, many questions were raised in the legal circles. Does the bench decide the case pending in the court or by a branch officer? The police did not even have such general information? Again, the court does not 'request' someone to be arrested, it orders it. Did the police not know this? Regarding the criminal charges against someone, the case pending in the court is reported to the police and they know who should be arrested and when. There were no charges against Chaudhary. In this case, how was the immediate implementation of the letter without any reason?
'If someone is detained after the verdict, the letter of the court does not go directly to the police, but to the Directorate of Judgment Implementation,' says Achyut Prasad Kuinkel, spokesperson of the Supreme Court, 'from the Directorate, it goes to the tehsil branch of the respective district and after the tehsil branch prepares a letter stating who will be imprisoned for how long and when they will be released, the police will be dispatched.' Did the police not know this? "Looking at it all, this letter was a part of a big conspiracy," says senior advocate Shambhu Thapa, "It cannot be said that the entire court was involved as one suspects, but there are indications that a powerful group is involved in it. It should be investigated immediately, it is not enough to prosecute a branch officer."
Legal professionals have said that the incident should be fully investigated, saying that it was done on whims and fancies. After the incident came to light, the Supreme Court sent another letter to release Chaudhary saying that Bishta's letter was unauthorized, and another letter to detain Bishta.
Ravin Sharma, another legal practitioner of Chaudhary, claims that the Supreme Court should not cover up this case as unauthorized, but admit that there was a mistake and investigate it. "Since this is a matter of great political importance, the court administration quickly corrected the mistake made by them," says advocate Sharma, "if this was done in the case of ordinary citizens, would the court have shown priority in correcting the error in this way?" For doing this, they have written a letter to the police to investigate and take action according to Sections 84, 87 and 276 of the Criminal Code Act 2074 and sent Bista to custody along with the letter. Section 84 states that a national servant should not give false information, if he gives it or gives it, he will be imprisoned for up to 1 year. In section 87, there is a provision that one should not disobey an order to be obeyed according to law and if he/she does it, he/she will be imprisoned for up to 6 months. Similarly, in section 276, it is mentioned that labor should not be done and if it is done, it will be punished up to 10 years.
A legal expert has analyzed that a letter written by a minor employee with wrong intentions has caused great damage from the cleanliness of the court to the public trust in the criminal justice system, so the Supreme Court cannot correct it by issuing a statement.
"This is the biggest fraud in the court so far, it will be a mistake to take it as the result of one person's whim," says Thapa, "This incident has confirmed that there may be a conspiratorial group operating in it, which can destroy the state machinery if given a chance, and the court should conduct a serious and fair investigation."
are on tour. Thapa says that Sapna Pradhan Malla, the senior-most judge who has held the position of Chief Justice permanently even though he is not the Chief Justice, should take the lead in a prompt and credible investigation.
