KATHMANDU: Former Home Minister and Chair of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), Rabi Lamichhane, has been released on bail by the Kaski District Court after paying Rs 6.5 million.
Lamichhane, who faces charges of cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering, expressed his gratitude toward the judiciary and his supporters upon his release.
Speaking during a Facebook Live broadcast from the court premises, Lamichhane thanked the judiciary for its decision and emphasized his continued faith in the justice system.
“Thank you very much to everyone,” he said. “I will speak when the time is right. There is still a lot of fighting to do. I am particularly grateful to the judiciary for giving me so much space to trust the justice system.”
Lamichhane’s release sparked a wave of reactions from his party members. Pramod Neupane, a member of Lamichhane’s secretariat, thanked the court for its decision, stating Lamichhane had regained his confidence in the judiciary.
Sobita Gautam, an RSP lawmaker and lawyer, also welcomed the court’s ruling, stating, “Today, our faith in the court has been restored. The judiciary’s decision sends a message that the justice system can still be trusted.”
Manish Jha, RSP’s spokesperson, echoed similar sentiments, calling the court’s decision a ‘ray of hope’ for the party and its supporters.
“This was the first and most complex part of a large package of cases, and the judiciary’s decision has kept hope alive,” he said.
While the court ordered Lamichhane’s release, its decision does not clear him of the charges. The court explicitly stated that the evidence presented so far does not conclusively prove his innocence. The verdict, issued by Judge Nitij Rai, highlighted that further investigation and evidence would determine the final outcome of the case.
The court based its decision on Sections 68 and 72 of the National Criminal Procedure, 2017. It ruled that Lamichhane should pay a bail amount of Rs 6.5 million, either in cash or through a bank guarantee, to avoid detention during the trial.
The court further noted that failure to pay the bail would result in Lamichhane’s detention at the Kaski Prison Office.
The court outlined six key reasons for granting bail in Lamichhane’s case. It noted evidence of 814 checks from Gorkha Media Company being signed both before and after Lamichhane’s official involvement with the company.
Additionally, another individual in a managerial role held the authority to sign checks, which further complicated the matter. Financial records revealed that Rs 7.5 million from a cooperative’s account were deposited into Lamichhane’s Global IME account and later transferred to the account of Gorkha Media Network Pvt. Ltd.
The court also highlighted that cooperative funds passed through Lamichhane’s accounts before being redirected elsewhere. Furthermore, there were interconnections between Lamichhane and other defendants implicated in the case. While these findings indicate Lamichhane’s involvement in questionable financial activities, they do not provide conclusive evidence of guilt at this stage.
Lamichhane’s legal team, led by senior advocate Raman Shrestha, argued that the court’s decision to grant bail reflects the lack of immediate necessity to detain Lamichhane during the trial.
“The order means there are unresolved matters that will be addressed later in the trial. For now, the court decided that detention was unnecessary,” Shrestha said.
However, critics have questioned the RSP’s portrayal of the decision. Initially, the party demanded Lamichhane’s unconditional release, arguing that he was innocent. Despite this, RSP leaders have now welcomed the bail decision, with some interpreting it as a partial victory.
Before the court hearing, RSP leaders had claimed that Lamichhane would be acquitted. This stance shifted after the court imposed a substantial bail, leading some to accuse the party of prematurely framing the decision as a clean chit.
The case, involving cooperative fraud and money laundering, remains under active investigation. The court has emphasized that its ruling on bail does not equate to a verdict of innocence. Further evidence will be crucial in determining Lamichhane’s legal fate.
Comment