It is wrong to interpret the release of Oli and the writer as 'the case is over'. In legal terms, they have been 'released from custody', not 'from charges'. The investigation against them is ongoing, and a decision on whether or not to file a case has yet to be made.
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.
Former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak were released from police custody on Thursday. They were released on bail 13 days after their arrest as per the Supreme Court order. Oli was released in the custody of his wife Radhika Shakya and Lekhak was released in the custody of his wife Yashoda Lekhak. Immediately after his release from custody, Oli commented on the social media platform Facebook that the government had framed him in a biased and vindictive manner. Not only that, he presented his release as being due to 'lack of grounds and evidence to prosecute'. Oli wrote, 'I have finally been released after lack of grounds and evidence to prosecute'. This naturally implies that the charges have been dismissed, and he has been acquitted and released. However, that is not the case. He has been released in the custody of his family on bail. And, the investigation against him is still pending. There is a big difference between the apparent 'release' and the actual state of the legal process, which is important to understand. Did the Supreme Court really release him due to 'insufficient evidence'? No. The Supreme Court has never ruled that 'insufficient evidence' or 'the case will not proceed'. On 23 Chaitra, a bench of Supreme Court Justices Binod Sharma and Sunil Kumar Pokharel had given an order while hearing a writ of habeas corpus.
In the order, the Supreme Court did not call the investigation into Oli's detention 'illegal' but only said that it was not necessary to extend his detention. The Kathmandu District Court had given Oli a detention period until 26 Chaitra. Oli was released from custody today after the extended period expired and asked not to extend it again.
What was the background to the arrest of Oli and the writer?
Oli and the writer were arrested on Chaitra 14. The cabinet meeting held immediately after senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader Balendra Shah became the Prime Minister decided to implement the report of the inquiry commission led by Gauri Bahadur Karki, and on that basis, the police obtained an urgent arrest warrant and arrested them from their residence.
Then, the Kathmandu District Court repeatedly extended the detention period. While the investigation was ongoing, the family filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court.
What grounds did the Supreme Court give for their release?
The Supreme Court took four main grounds when ordering not to extend the period for investigation against both Oli and the writer.
First, the main work of the investigation has been completed:
As per the Supreme Court order, the police have recorded statements from both Oli and the writer in the presence of the government prosecutor. After the main phase of the investigation was completed, the court concluded that there was no reason to continue their detention.
Second, the fact that the CDO was released:
The Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that Chhabi Raj Rijal, the CDO of Kathmandu district, was released on bail during the Gen-G movement. In the same case as Oli and the writer, the police arrested Rijal on Tuesday (17 Chaitra) and released him on bail on the same day.
Third, the state of mourning: Oli's father and the writer's mother had recently passed away. And, since they were mourning, the court took this situation seriously for religious and social reasons.
Fourth, Oli's health condition: The court has also given importance to the fact that he is a complex patient and is under medical observation. The Supreme Court has ordered not to extend their detention period even on the basis that Oli is under the direct supervision of a special medical team during his treatment.
Are 'release' and 'cleansing' the same thing? This is the most important question. It is wrong to interpret the release of Oli and the writer as 'the case is over'. In legal terms, they have been 'released from custody', 'not from charges'.
The investigation against them is ongoing, and a decision on whether or not to register a case has yet to be made. The only difference between inside and outside custody is that Oli and the writer now live at home, but must be present when called by the police. How will the case proceed now?
This case is still under police investigation. After the investigation, if the police and the public prosecutor consider that there is sufficient evidence, a case will be registered in the district court. However, based on the police investigation, the district public prosecutor's office can also decide not to prosecute.
If a decision is made not to prosecute, it must be approved by the Attorney General's Office, via the higher public prosecutor's office. The higher public prosecutor's office or the Attorney General's Office can also overturn it. And, after that, the mandatory case must be registered in the district court.
Once the case is registered in the district court, the legal process of 'detention hearing' begins. Whether Oli and the writer will go to jail for trial or be released on bail or on a regular date will be decided after the detention hearing.
If we look at it this way, the case of Oli and the writer is not over. Rather, it is just beginning. Therefore, as Oli claims, he was not released because 'there was not enough basis and evidence to prosecute'.
