KATHMANDU, Jan 17: The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) on Friday filed an appeal at the Supreme Court (SC), seeking the annulment of a Special Court order that allowed the defendants—including the suspended Director General of the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN)—to remain free on nominal bail and regular attendance in a corruption case related to the construction of Pokhara Regional International Airport (PRIA).
In its petition, the CIAA argued that the Special Court’s order was improper and demanded that the defendants be kept in custody during the trial.
According to CIAA Spokesperson Suresh Neupane, the Special Court had ordered the release of the defendants on regular attendance in a corruption case involving alleged losses amounting to billions of rupees. He said the order weakened the overall case, prompting the CIAA to approach the SC seeking a directive to detain the defendants for the duration of the trial.
The defendants—then deputy directors of CAAN Ashok Kumar Subedi, Suwarn Raj Upadhyay, and Mahesh Kumar Basnet—had appeared before the Special Court. After recording their statements and conducting detention hearings, a bench comprising Judges Narayan Prasad Paudel and Hemant Rawal ordered their release, along with other defendants, on regular attendance.
The CIAA had filed the case claiming losses of Rs 8.36 billion. Given the scale of the alleged loss, the CIAA said it decided to appeal to the SC following the Special Court’s decision to release the defendants on regular attendance. The appeal seeks the annulment of the detention orders that granted nominal bail and regular attendance.
Desperate search for missing girls as nearly 80 dead in Texas f...
The CIAA has charged five former ministers, among others, with corruption amounting to Rs 8.36 billion in connection with the construction of PRIA and the procurement of materials. On November 27, the CIAA filed corruption cases against 10 former secretaries, serving officials, 55 employees, and contractor companies.
On December 9, the Special Court ordered the release of CAAN Director General Pradeep Adhikari—who was suspended after being charged—upon the deposit of bail amounting to Rs 500,000, while Murari Bhandari was released on bail of Rs 100,000. Adhikari is currently lodged at Dillibazar Prison and is also facing other cases.
Similarly, on December 31, the court issued another order allowing defendants Subedi, Upadhyay, and Basnet to remain free on regular attendance during the trial. Narayan Giri was granted similar relief on January 8, followed by Baburam Paudel on January 13. The CIAA has claimed that all these orders were improper.
Invoking Clause (5) of Section 7 of the Special Court Act, 2059 BS; Section 73 under Chapter 7 of the National Penal Code, 2074 BS; and Section 15 of the Judicial Administration Act, 2073 BS, the CIAA has registered a petition at the SC seeking the custody of the defendants—including CAAN Director General Adhikari and defendants Basnet, Subedi, Upadhyay, Bhandari, Giri, and Paudel—during trial.
The CIAA has presented seven grounds to argue that the detention orders were improper. In its petition, the CIAA stated that courts, while issuing detention orders, must consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offence, the defendants’ level of involvement, the circumstances of the crime, the possibility of evidence tampering or fabrication, the safety of victims and witnesses, the social impact and public outrage generated by the incident, the need to ensure the defendants’ presence in court, the potential punishment, the execution of verdicts, and the need to curb arbitrary actions.
However, the CIAA alleged that the Special Court ignored evidence and facts admitted by the defendants and issued arbitrary orders—setting disproportionately low bail for some defendants compared to the claimed losses and granting regular attendance to others—thereby rendering the orders flawed and improper.
The CIAA further argued that among defendants Basnet, Subedi, Upadhyay, Bhandari, Giri, and Paudel—who allegedly played similar roles in the offence—granting Bhandari bail of only Rs 100,000 while allowing others to remain free on regular attendance contradicts Supreme Court precedents and the fundamental principles of criminal justice.
Citing Supreme Court principles, the CIAA stated that in offences committed under a pyramid-style hierarchy of responsibility, it is impermissible to hold one level accountable while granting impunity to another level involved in the same act. In this context, the CIAA argued that both upper and lower tiers must be investigated and prosecuted in line with the spirit of justice.
Despite evidence indicating that defendants Basnet, Subedi, Upadhyay, Giri, Bhandari, and Pradeep Adhikari discussed and approved a feasibility study report submitted by China CAMC Engineering—which pegged the project cost at USD 264.958 million and directly contributed to cost escalation—the Special Court allegedly ignored these facts.
The CIAA argued that relying solely on the claim that these defendants were not involved in the final agreement does not justify granting them release on nominal bail or regular attendance, given the scale of losses inflicted on the Government of Nepal and CAAN.
The CIAA further stated that the Special Court failed to properly examine, interpret, and analyse the immediate evidence submitted with the charge sheet, as well as the reasonable grounds indicating the defendants’ culpability, while issuing the detention orders.
