Former PM Nepal’s statement concludes
Earlier today, Nepal recorded his statement in court, after which the bail hearing commenced, according to Special Court spokesperson Yagya Raj Regmi.
KATHMANDU: The Special Court has begun a detention hearing against former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal in connection with the Patanjali land misappropriation case.
Earlier today, Nepal recorded his statement in court, after which the bail hearing commenced, according to Special Court spokesperson Yagya Raj Regmi.
The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has filed corruption charges against Nepal and 92 others, including former minister Dambar Shrestha, former Chief Secretary Madhav Ghimire, former Land Reform Secretary Chhabiraj Panta, and Patanjali Nepal head Shaligram Singh.
Nepal is accused of unlawfully approving the sale of government land during his tenure as Prime Minister in 2066–67 BS, allowing Patanjali Ayurved and Yogpeeth to establish industries on restricted plots under boundary exemptions.
The CIAA has demanded a recovery of over Rs 185.85 million from Nepal, along with an equivalent fine and imprisonment ranging from 10 to 14 years.
Following the indictment, Nepal has been suspended from his post as a Member of the House of Representatives.
A verdict on whether Nepal will be released on bail, personal recognizance, or sent to judicial custody is expected today.
Nepal becomes the first former Prime Minister in Nepal’s multiparty democratic era to face a corruption trial in court. Although former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba was once arrested under the royal commission during King Gyanendra’s rule in 2061, that commission was later annulled and its decisions invalidated.
During the Panchayat era, former PM Tulsi Giri faced a corruption case over irregularities in carpet exports, but was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Madhav Kumar Nepal is also under scrutiny in the controversial Lalita Niwas land scam. Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai was also implicated in that case, but neither was named as defendants when the CIAA filed the charges in Magh 22, 2076.
A writ challenging that omission is still under consideration at the Supreme Court.
