Supreme Court Questions CIB’s Arrest Procedures Amid High-Profile Detentions

The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police arrested Jyotiprakash Pande, CEO of Nepal Investment Mega Bank (NIMB), on May 12, on charges of fraud and criminal breach of trust. However, the Supreme Court ordered his release on bail, highlighting that the CIB’s arrest procedure was hasty. Despite the CIB detaining several high-profile individuals, the court has repeatedly ordered their release, indicating political pressure and procedural flaws in the investigations.
In the case against the 63-year-old Pande, the CIB initiated investigation under the Muluki Criminal Code for fraud and criminal breach of trust. According to Rule 18 of the Telecommunication Service Provider’s Property Management Regulations, 2079, the entire assets, telecommunication infrastructure, systems, and networks of Smart Telecom, a licensed operator under Nepal Telecommunications Authority’s supervision, were seized. The CIB accused Pande of dishonestly managing government assets, intending to unlawfully deprive the Nepalese government of its rights, as stated in a press release by SSP and spokesperson Shivkumar Shrestha.
The Supreme Court, however, ordered Pande’s release on bail. On May 15, a bench comprising Justices Saranga Subedi and Shantisinh Thapa directed that Pande be released on bail under the sponsorship of a senior advocate, allowing the investigation to continue without detention. The court emphasized that no circumstances justified holding him in custody. Following this order, Pande was released, sending a clear message that the CIB’s arrest was premature.
Meanwhile, following Pande’s arrest, questions arose about the CIB exceeding its jurisdiction. Industry experts pointed out that seizing collateral assets for recovering non-performing loans is primarily a banking right. Despite this, the CIB’s involvement in this case raised concerns. The bank maintained that the collateral auctions were conducted in accordance with existing laws and directives of the Nepal Rastra Bank.
A similar situation occurred with industrialist Shekhar Golcha, arrested on May 23. Golcha, also a former president of the Nepal Chamber of Commerce, was detained by the CIB under investigation related to the Securities Act.
The Supreme Court’s repeated questioning of the CIB’s investigation and arrest procedures has cast doubt on the bureau’s methods. If this is the outcome for those apprehended by the CIB, it raises concerns about how detainees handled by other police units might be treated.
