Judges Khushi Prasad Tharu and Arjun Maharjan, who overturned the verdict of life imprisonment given by District Court Rautahat against former minister Mohammad Aftab Alam for the crime of burning the injured in a brick kiln to erase the evidence of the bomb blast, will be investigated. The Judicial Council formed a committee under the chairmanship of Supreme Court Justice Vinod Sharma and proceeded with the investigation.

Judges Tharu and Maharjan of Birganj temporary bench of High Court Janakpur have also been barred from sitting on the bench from Thursday. They have been summoned to appear before the Supreme Court, a council official informed. Questions were being raised on the Judicial Council for not investigating the judges who acquitted Alam even though the evidence was sufficient. Three weeks after the verdict from the high court, the council is ready for the investigation. 

The district court sentenced Alam and three others to life imprisonment on 13 Baisakh 2081 for the crime of burning to death Trilok Pratap Singh Rajput and OC Akhtar in a brick kiln, who were injured in the bomb blast on 27 Chait 2064 in Rautahat. On June 14, the bench of Justices Tharu and Maharjan overturned the district court's decision on Alam's appeal against it. On the day of the verdict, Alam was released from Nakhu Jail.

Pintu's 84-year-old father Sreenarayan Singh reached the Judicial Council on Monday and filed a complaint asking that the judge who acquitted him shortly after going beyond the facts-evidence should be investigated. "The judges of the high court said that the incident did not happen," he said after filing the complaint, "Then I request the member of the judicial council and the chief justice, if it did not happen, show me where my son is, if not, take action against the unjust judge." He asked the council to hear his petition as soon as possible. News about this was published by Kantipur on Wednesday. 

After the demand to investigate the judge who acquitted Alam became widespread, the Justice Council convened a meeting on Wednesday evening to take a decision. According to an official of the council, Law Minister Ajay Kumar Chaurasia tried to end the meeting by saying that there was no need for the council to investigate Alam's decision. Since many questions have been raised about this, others took a stand arguing that the dignity of the court will continue to suffer if the Council does not address it. After that, it was decided to remove the judges from the bench and drag them to the Supreme Court and investigate. Although the decision to investigate was made on Wednesday, the committee was formed from Thursday's meeting. 

Former MP Alam and Law Minister Chaurasia belong to the same party, Congress. Minister Chaurasia has also been accused of calling the judges to get a favorable decision in the case. On Thursday, in the Parliament meeting, MP Amresh Singh asked for an investigation by asking the 'call details' of Minister Chaurasia. An official of the Supreme Court said that there was a question that Minister Chaurasia had influenced the judges to acquit Alam and the investigation committee would also investigate this. 

On the evening of 27 Chait 2064, in the evening of 27 Chait 2064, Pintu and Mian were injured in an explosion in the shed of Sheikh Idris, Alam's uncle, in Rajapur. To keep the incident secret, both of them were burnt in a brick kiln. Alam used his political influence to influence the police administration, public prosecutor and other state apparatuses to prevent the case from proceeding. The police had weakened the investigation and the District and Appeals Public Prosecutor's Office had decided not to proceed with the case. It was endorsed by the Attorney General's Office on 30 June 2065. 

Three orders from the Supreme Court against Alam

The decision not to prosecute the case in which the victim of the bomb blast was thrown into a brick kiln and died is against the principles of criminal justice. Hearing on that on 16th June 2069, the joint bench of Sushila Karki and Bharat Bahadur Karki ordered an investigation against Alam. 

According to the constitution, although the Attorney General's Office has the final right to decide whether to file a case on behalf of the government, the Supreme Court overruled the Attorney General's decision at that time, stating that such authority cannot be used arbitrarily when the facts and evidence show that someone is guilty. It was mentioned in the Supreme Court's order that since the incident was confirmed by Kitani's statement, the statement of other injured persons and the recovery of socks and shoes of the deceased, the statement of eyewitnesses and the on-site investigation report of the Human Rights Commission, Nepal Bar Association and other organizations related to rights. 

Reversing the decision of the then Attorney General Yagyamurthy Banjade, the Supreme Court ordered to 'start an investigation and take further evidence and take action according to the prevailing law', but it was not implemented for years. Then Advocate Pushparaj Paudel filed another petition in the Supreme Court asking the Attorney General's Office to prosecute the case for contempt of court. On June 6, 2076, the bench of Justices Anil Sinha and Kumar Regmi ordered an immediate investigation of the incident and retrial. It was also asked to start the investigation within 30 days of receiving the order and to submit its monthly report to the court. 

After the Supreme Court's second order, a case was filed against Balla Alam and others in the District Court Rautahat. On 29 October 2076, the bench of District Judge Deepak Dhakal gave an order to keep Alam in custody for preliminary investigation. Against this, Alam appealed in the Birgunj bench of the High Court Janakpur. The bench of Judges Dilliraj Acharya and Satyamohan Joshi refused to release Alam on bail saying that 'the grounds taken by the District Court Rautahat are reasonable and the detention cannot be said to be unjustified'. 

  After the decision of the High Court, Alam filed a petition in the Supreme Court on 12 October 2077 to 'be released from prison'. The joint bench of Supreme Court Justice Sushmalata Mathema and Nahkul Subedi upheld the district and higher orders on 23 Baisakh 2079 and ordered the continuation of the detention, stating that 'Alam cannot be said to be innocent in view of the nature of the incident and the evidence.' 

Judges Tharu and Maharjan of the temporary bench of the High Court, Birganj, gave a decision to acquit Alam, who was tried repeatedly by the Supreme Court and who was convicted after being imprisoned according to the case. Before that, the decision was made in a short period of time after moving the money repeatedly and coming to the bench of Tharu and Maharjan. Even though it is doubtful at first glance, there was a demand that the judges should be investigated for setting aside the established facts and annulling the judgment of the district court.

  three times order against Alam by the Supreme Court