KATHMANDU: Businessman Shekhar Golchha has returned to work after being released from custody in connection with securities and insurance-related offenses.
The Kathmandu District Court refused to grant permission to keep Golchha in custody for further investigation in the insurance-related case, paving the way for authorities to investigate him while he remains out of detention.
Golchha, who was arrested on April 23 in connection with securities and insurance-related offenses, was released from custody on May 5.
His statement in both cases has already been recorded, although detention hearing proceedings are still pending.
In the securities-related case, the Kathmandu District Court had earlier ordered his release on a bail amount of Rs 500,000. However, immediately after posting bail and securing release, he was detained again by the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police for investigation into another offense under the Insurance Act.
Golchha had initially secured release in the securities case after depositing the bail amount. But as he was leaving custody, the CIB took him into control for investigation into the separate insurance-related allegation.
Although police later sought an extension of remand in the insurance case, the court declined to allow further detention. Authorities subsequently released him and continued the investigation while keeping him outside custody.
Following his release, Golchha said he resumed work from Friday. In a social media post, he announced his return after nearly 12 days in detention, writing: “Now back to work.”
Earlier, a joint bench of Supreme Court justices Mahesh Sharma Poudel and Shrikant Poudel had rejected a habeas corpus petition seeking his release in the securities case.
However, the court concluded that there had been legal flaws in the process used to keep him in custody and issued a directive order accordingly.
The court also recalled that Section 104(1) of the Securities Act, 2006 allows authorities to seek bail or guarantees only if there is a risk of absconding or financial loss. It ruled that the lower court had failed to properly apply that legal provision while ordering Golchha’s detention.
Comment