Mahendranagar, 11 September

It has ordered the release of 18 people arrested in the case of embezzlement of government land of Lalita Niwas. Among the arrested, 17 people have been ordered to be released on bail and one person has been ordered to be released.

The single bench of District Court Judge Bholanath Dhakal ordered Keshav Tuladhar to be released on a simple date. He has been released with the order of the court. The District Court has ordered Meen Bahadur Gurung, the owner of Bhatbhateni Supermarket, to release him on a bond of 24.6 million rupees.

Similarly, 3 lakh 30 thousand with Shivji Bhattarai, then ward secretary of Kathmandu Metropolitan City-4, 7 lakh 50 thousand with Rudra Kumar Shrestha, then director general of Land Reforms and Management Department, 7 lakh 50 thousand with Balkrishna Shrestha, then Senior Division Engineer of Urban Development and Building Construction Department, 7 lakh 50 thousand with Malport Office Dillibazar. A bail of 15 lakhs has been demanded from Kaladhar Deuja, the then chief shipping officer, and 750,000 rupees from Ghaman Kumar Karki, the then surveyor of surveyor office Dillibazar Kathmandu.

Similarly, the court has demanded 750,000 from Gopal Karki, the then buyer of the goods office Dillibazar, Kathmandu, 1500,000 from Vinod Prasad Paudel, the then assistant accountant of Samarjung Company, and 750,000 from Subba Yograj Paudel, the then deputy of the goods office, Dillibazar. 7 lakh 50 has been demanded from Lokhari Ghimire, then head of Samarjung Company, 7 lakh 50 thousand from buyer Narayanraj Mishra and 7 lakh 50 from then Amin Arun Kumar Shrestha of Napi Office Maitidevi Kathmandu.

The District Court has demanded Rs 330,000 from surveyor Dhruv Prasad Aryal and Rs 110,000 from Baburaja Maharjan, Devnarayan Maharjan, Saklanand Maharjan and Sanjay Kumar Maharjan. A case was registered in the district court against 310 people for misappropriating 143 acres of government land of Lalita Niwas in the name of individuals. 21 of them have died. 18 people were arrested out of the opposition. It is mentioned in the indictment that others are absconding.

Why did the court leave on bail?
In the Lalita residence land case, the district court of Kathmandu has shown the grounds and reasons why the accused should not be detained. According to the investigation report of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CIB) of the police, the public prosecutor's office had filed a case against them for offenses under Sections 1 and 2 of the Civil Code, 2020. If the charges against the workers are proven, they would be punished with a maximum of one year, while government employees can be punished with a maximum of two years.

Judge Dhakal's bench ordered that the accused should not be detained in accordance with section 67 of the Civil Code of Criminal Procedure, 2074. In that section, it is mentioned that the crimes of schedule 1 and 2, which are punishable by imprisonment for more than three years, should be kept in prison.

If Kirte's charges are established, the government employees will be imprisoned for a maximum of two years, so the district court has ordered that bail be sought from them. In the order, it is said, "As per section 67 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State, 2074, the defendant should not be considered if it is not possible to send him to prison." The District Court ordered that the bail should be set according to the status of the offender, saying that if most of them fail to pay the bail, they will be sent to prison again. "Requesting bail or bail means getting his presence when the court seeks him," the order said, "If a large amount of bail is demanded, it appears that bail or bail must be demanded so that the accused is not in a situation where he cannot keep the bond."

The court has also mentioned the precedent of the Supreme Court when releasing on bail. The court said that even if the case is not prosecuted on the subject of the investigation, the investigation that has already taken place will not be considered illegal. Citing the example of three years ago, the District Court said, "If it is not found that a crime has been committed while investigating with good intentions, the court will not consider the extension of the investigation as illegal." Could not agree.'