Girls aged 16-17 are given hormone injections from the third day of their menstrual cycle for 10 days. Once it is determined that their eggs are ready, they are anesthetized and the eggs are removed. The girls are given 10,000 rupees each and are discharged.

This crime of body piercing was being committed at Hope Fertility in Babarmahal, Kathmandu. The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police had investigated and prepared a report on the team including doctors involved in this inhuman atrocity against girls.

However, Attorney General Savita Bhandari has decided not to prosecute. Because she has her own investment in Hope Fertility. Thus, the Attorney General chosen by former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, who became Prime Minister on the foundation of the Gen-G movement, has respected justice and the law.

The process of using other women's eggs to produce children is prevalent all over the world. However, for this, eggs are usually extracted from adult women, on their own decision and with the consent of the family. However, in Hope Fertility, run by Attorney General Bhandari and her relatives, 16-17-year-old girls were prepared for egg collection.

They were given hormone injections from the third day of menstruation to 10 days, and their eggs were extracted on the 13th day. The girls were prepared for this by luring them with money, and their parents were not informed. The police report also mentions that the investigation has shown that some girls were taken to Hope Fertility by middlemen for the purpose of extracting eggs.

In the investigation conducted by the CIB since 26 Ashad, the file that reached the Attorney General's Office through the District Attorney's Office and the High Attorney's Office has been sent to the Attorney General's Office, and Attorney General Bhandari has decided not to prosecute the case.

In the statements given to the police by the girls, they said, 'We were given 10,000 rupees, we were injected for 9-10 days from the third day of menstruation. Then they were made unconscious and the eggs were extracted.' The police investigation has shown that the eggs extracted in this way were 'preserved' and given to other couples after extorting a large amount of money.

The CIB had registered a complaint for crimes against children and taken HOPE chief Dr. Swasti Sharma, Dr. Malina Chaudhary, Ashmi Adhikari, Justina Pradhan and Alisha Oli under custody for investigation. They were later released on bail. Dr. Swasti is the daughter of Attorney General Bhandari's maternal grandmother, while Bhandari's daughter Dr. Pratyusha Baral also works in this family company.

The share records of Hope Fertility show that Attorney General Bhandari himself owns 46,000 shares, or 23 percent of the founder's shares, in this organization, which has two hundred thousand shares. She has said that she was not pressured to decide not to prosecute despite her investment in the company. She has been claiming that the decision not to prosecute was taken from the Deputy Attorney General level and that she came to know about it only later.

However, the letter written to the police clearly states that 'as per the decision of the Attorney General not to prosecute the case'. The Ministry of Health has issued the ‘Standards for the Operation of Infertility Management Services-2082’. It also stipulates clear provisions for donors who donate sperm or eggs. However, the Attorney General’s Office has concluded that the case cannot be prosecuted due to the lack of law since the standards were not issued when this incident came to light. 

However, legal experts say that the prevailing law is sufficient to prosecute this heinous crime committed against girls. Section 66 (2) of the Children’s Act, 2075 BS, also considers the act of removing organs from children, using children for medicine or any other tests contrary to the prevailing law as a crime of violence against children. 

Similarly, Section 2 of the same Act clarifies that a child is a person who has not completed 18 years of age. Similarly, Section 20(a) of the same law states that ‘A person, official or juvenile court involved in the administration of juvenile justice shall understand the views of the child before making any decision that may affect the child in the course of the administration of justice.’

Similarly, Section (b) states that ‘Before making a decision on any matter affecting the interests and interests of the child, the father, mother, other family members or guardians shall be given an opportunity to express their views.’ In this way, the Attorney General’s Office has taken away the right protected by law to hear the side of children and their guardians.