KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court has raised serious questions over the arrest warrant issued against former Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba and Arzu Rana, pointing to multiple legal flaws in the process followed by the government authorities.
Hearing a writ petition filed by Deuba and others, a joint bench of Justices Mahesh Sharma Poudel and Nityananda Pandey on Monday issued an interim order, stating that the legal procedures required for granting arrest permission had not been properly followed.
The court order noted that both the Department of Money Laundering Investigation and the Kathmandu District Court failed to comply with the procedures mandated by law.
The Supreme Court ordered that the arrest permission issued by the Kathmandu District Court on Chaitra 24, 2082, should not be implemented immediately and directed authorities not to arrest the petitioners on the basis of that order.
In the writ petition, Deuba argued that there were no grounds to arrest him under Section 16(1)(g) of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2008.
He had also sought an interim order to prevent obstruction in clearing debris from his Budhanilkantha residence in Kathmandu, which was destroyed in an arson attack allegedly carried out in the name of Gen-Z protesters on Bhadra 24, 2082.
Supreme Court’s interpretation
1. Legal procedures were not followed while seeking arrest permission
The court stated that under Section 9 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017, and Rule 3 of the Criminal Procedure Regulations, 2018, authorities must disclose specific details while seeking arrest permission.
According to the court, the request must include:
- Clear identification of the accused person
- Details of the alleged offense
- Evidence or grounds indicating involvement
- Date, time and place of the incident
- Reasons and justification for arrest
However, the Supreme Court concluded that the Department of Money Laundering Investigation failed to provide these required details while seeking permission, and the Kathmandu District Court also failed to ensure compliance before granting approval.
2. ‘Due process of law’ must be followed
While issuing the interim order, the Supreme Court emphasized that the state must strictly follow “due process of law” while arresting any individual.
The order stated that although authorities may arrest individuals for investigation purposes, such arrests cannot be arbitrary and permissions granted without following legal procedures cannot be considered valid.
The court also stressed that both investigating agencies and courts handling such cases must remain vigilant regarding procedural safeguards.
3. Jurisdiction lies with the Special Court
The Supreme Court further clarified that cases related to money laundering fall under the jurisdiction of the Special Court.
The order noted that following amendments made to the Money Laundering Prevention Act through an ordinance issued on Baisakh 18, such cases must now be filed in the Special Court.
Despite this, authorities had obtained arrest permission against Deuba from the Kathmandu District Court. The Supreme Court concluded that permission granted by the district court was ineffective in the absence of authorization from the Special Court.
4. Earlier arrest permission rendered ineffective
The court also interpreted that after the ordinance shifted jurisdiction to the Special Court, the earlier arrest permission issued by the Kathmandu District Court had automatically become ineffective.
For that reason, the Supreme Court issued an interim order preventing implementation of the arrest warrant issued on Chaitra 24, 2082.
What the case file showed
According to the Supreme Court, investigation records showed that the Department of Money Laundering Investigation had sought permission on Chaitra 22, 2082, to arrest Deuba and his wife Arzu Rana, and that the Kathmandu District Court granted approval two days later.
However, the court found that the application seeking arrest permission did not sufficiently disclose the necessary legal grounds and justification.
Following the interim order, Deuba and Rana cannot currently be arrested based on the existing arrest permission.
Legal experts said the order sends a strong message that investigating agencies must strictly comply with legal standards while pursuing arrests.
They added that the ruling establishes an important precedent regarding the role of courts in approving arrests, the responsibilities of investigating agencies, and the constitutional importance of due process.
Comment