KATHMANDU, Dec 29: A troubling pattern is emerging in Nepal’s high-profile corruption cases: investigators claim losses running into billions of rupees, only for courts to release the accused on bail worth a few lakhs.
Several recent cases illustrate this stark mismatch.
In one case involving 56 individuals, including suspended Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) Director General Pradeep Adhikari, prosecutors claimed losses exceeding Rs 8.36 billion. The Special Court, however, ordered Adhikari’s release on a bail of just Rs 500,000.
In another case concerning the leasing of Nepal Trust land, losses of Rs 5.25 billion were claimed against then Secretary Arjun Bahadur Karki, Joint Secretary Lekh Bahadur Karki, and Thamserku Trekking Chairperson Lhakpa Sonam Sherpa. The Kathmandu District Court released the accused on bail amounting to Rs 1.6 million.
Similarly, in the gold smuggling case against former Speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara, prosecutors sought more than three years of imprisonment and claimed losses of Rs 85.528 million. The court ordered his release on a cash bail of Rs 2 million.
These cases are not exceptions. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police routinely file cases citing losses worth hundreds of millions or even billions of rupees. Yet, courts often set bail at amounts that appear disproportionately low.
Reforming Anti-Corruption Legislations
The recurring disparity has fuelled public scepticism and revived uncomfortable questions: Are investigations fundamentally weak? Are cases being filed without adequate evidence? Or are courts exercising excessive leniency, possibly under influence?
Last week, the CIB filed charges against Arjun Bahadur Karki, Lekh Bahadur Karki, and Lhakpa Sonam Sherpa over irregularities in leasing Nepal Trust land. Despite claiming losses of Rs 5.25 billion, the Kathmandu District Court ordered the two Karkis to be released on bail totalling Rs 1.6 million.
CIB Spokesperson Shiva Kumar Shrestha defended the agency’s work, stating that cases are filed strictly on the basis of evidence. “We file cases based on irregularities established during investigation,” he said, adding that bail determination lies entirely within the judiciary’s jurisdiction.
A similar defence is offered by the CIAA. In the Pokhara Regional International Airport case, the anti-graft body accused 56 individuals of causing losses exceeding Rs 8.36 billion. Yet the Special Court granted bail of Rs 500,000 to suspended CAAN Director General Adhikari.
As investigation agencies continue to file cases involving large-scale corruption and massive financial claims, the repeated release of accused on low bail at the preliminary stage has deepened public distrust.
Although release on bail does not amount to acquittal, the glaring lack of proportionality between alleged losses and bail amounts has raised serious concerns. Bail is meant to ensure the accused’s presence in court, prevent evidence tampering, and uphold due process—not to reflect guilt. Still, the pattern warrants closer scrutiny.
Public frustration is growing. When authorities announce losses worth billions, citizens expect firm and credible judicial action. Releasing accused on bail worth a fraction of the alleged damage undermines confidence in the justice system and places investigation agencies, prosecutors, and courts under intense scrutiny.
There are also frequent complaints that bail tends to be unusually low when cases involve influential business figures, politically connected individuals, or former senior officials. Judges, however, insist their decisions are grounded solely in law and the strength of evidence presented.
Legal experts increasingly point to weak investigations as the core problem. Former Supreme Court Justice Balram KC says corruption cases must be built on solid proof of actual losses. “The irresponsibility of the CIAA and the CIB has created problems in some cases,” he said.
Under pressure from public outrage, deadlines, and political scrutiny, cases are sometimes filed hastily without sufficient evidence, KC added. “Courts decide based on facts, evidence, and the law. In some instances, they may appear lenient because the case itself is weak.”
A judge at the Special Court echoed this concern, noting that large financial claims alone do not justify strict bail. “The allegations often sound stronger than the evidence,” the judge said. “Poor documentation, unclear financial trails, and fragile evidence result in lower bail.”
Former CIAA Chief Commissioner Suryanath Upadhyay also acknowledged declining success rates in corruption prosecutions. “Filing cases is not an achievement in itself,” he said. “Weak investigations do real damage, and many cases fail to reach a conclusion.”
Investigators concede that weak coordination between investigative bodies and the Office of the Government Attorney often leads to premature filings. Deadlines, political pressure, and public criticism frequently force agencies to move forward before evidence is fully consolidated.
Stakeholders now argue that urgent reforms are needed—strengthening investigation quality, improving financial forensics, ensuring cases are filed only when evidence is robust, and establishing clearer, more transparent criteria for bail. Above all, stronger coordination among investigators, prosecutors, and courts is seen as essential to restoring public confidence in Nepal’s fight against corruption.
