Gupta's petition has been scheduled for hearing before a joint bench of Supreme Court Justices Binod Sharma and Shant Singh Thapa.
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.
The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for the petition filed by former minister Rajkumar Gupta, who is in custody under a special court order in the Lichibari corruption case.
Gupta had filed a petition in the Supreme Court after the special court sent him to custody in a corruption case without seeking bail. Gupta's petition has been listed for hearing in a joint bench of Supreme Court Justices Binod Sharma and Shantisingh Thapa.
Earlier, a joint bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Nripadhwaj Niraula had ordered to consider the application number 73 of the other defendants on Gupta's petition. In the Pokhara Lychibari corruption case, a bench of Special Court President Sudarshan Dev Bhatta and Justices Dilli Ratna Shrestha and Bidur Koirala had ordered to send him to custody for trial.
The then Minister Gupta had filed a corruption case in the special court alleging that he had taken a bribe of Rs 5.3 million from a real estate businessman on the pretext of stopping the transfer of the chief officer of the Kaski-based Land Revenue Office and making him a member of the Land Commission.
The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority had accused Minister Gupta and former Minister Ranjita Shrestha of colluding to abuse their positions and accept a bribe of Rs. 2.5 million in exchange for providing work facilities.
Gupta, while giving a statement in court, had claimed that the allegations against him were false and that he had not accepted a bribe from anyone. However, the court had ruled that he could not be considered innocent based on the evidence immediately available.
