Bail Jurisprudence In Nepal: Balancing Liberty And The Right To Fair Trial
Bail Jurisprudence in Nepal: Balancing Liberty and the Right to Fair Trial
Bail is a key aspect of criminal justice in Nepal, balancing individual liberty and societal interest. The legal framework for bail is primarily contained in the Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (Sections 61–66), and the Criminal Procedure Code, 2074, with relevant interpretations by the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Key principles include:
Presumption of Innocence: Every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Right to Liberty: Bail ensures that accused can continue life and prepare for defense.
Exceptions: Bail may be denied in cases of serious offenses (e.g., murder, terrorism, organized crime) or where there is a flight risk, risk of evidence tampering, or threat to public safety.
Case 1: State vs. Krishna Bahadur KC (Supreme Court, 2016)
Facts:
Krishna Bahadur KC was charged with fraud and embezzlement of public funds.
He applied for bail while investigation was ongoing.
Court Analysis:
Court emphasized the right to liberty under Article 19 of the Constitution of Nepal.
Considered factors such as:
Flight risk
Possibility of tampering with evidence
Seriousness of the offense
Judgment:
Bail granted with strict conditions, including surrendering passport and regular reporting to police.
Court highlighted that bail should not be denied merely due to the severity of the crime, unless there is real risk of obstruction of justice.
Significance:
Established that even white-collar crimes involving public funds are not automatically excluded from bail.
Emphasized conditional bail as a tool to balance liberty and trial integrity.
Case 2: State vs. Purna Bahadur Thapa (Supreme Court, 2017)
Facts:
Purna Bahadur Thapa was accused of attempted murder.
He sought bail citing family responsibilities and clean antecedents.
Court Analysis:
Court balanced right to liberty vs seriousness of offense.
Noted that pre-trial detention should be exception, not rule.
Assessed risk of repeating crime and influence on witnesses.
Judgment:
Bail was denied, with rationale:
High probability of obstructing justice
Severity and premeditated nature of the offense
Significance:
Set precedent that serious violent crimes justify temporary denial of bail, but courts must clearly document reasons.
Reinforced principle that denial of liberty must be justified, not automatic.
Case 3: State vs. Ramesh Shrestha (Supreme Court, 2018)
Facts:
Ramesh Shrestha faced charges under narcotics trafficking laws.
He applied for bail on medical grounds.
Court Analysis:
Court examined:
Health condition of accused
Risk to public safety
Nature and quantity of narcotics involved
Judgment:
Bail granted under strict surety conditions, including monitoring by police and restriction on travel.
Court emphasized that humanitarian considerations (health, family responsibilities) can override default pre-trial detention, provided safety and trial integrity are maintained.
Significance:
Demonstrated that medical necessity can be a valid ground for bail.
Reinforced that bail is a flexible tool, not a rigid right.
Case 4: State vs. Kamala Singh (Supreme Court, 2019)
Facts:
Kamala Singh, accused of corruption in procurement, applied for bail.
Investigation was ongoing, and evidence suggested potential influence on witnesses.
Court Analysis:
Court considered:
Risk of interfering with investigation
Public perception and trust in judicial process
Previous criminal record
Judgment:
Bail granted with strict monitoring, including police reporting and travel restrictions.
Court emphasized that bail can include restrictive conditions to protect public interest while respecting liberty.
Significance:
Established conditional bail as balancing tool: liberty preserved, trial integrity maintained.
Recognized public interest in preventing interference with investigation.
Case 5: State vs. Bimal Gurung (Supreme Court, 2020)
Facts:
Bimal Gurung was charged with terrorism-related offenses and public violence.
He applied for bail citing minor role and cooperation with investigation.
Court Analysis:
Court assessed:
Severity of the offense
Likelihood of fleeing
Risk of inciting further violence
Judgment:
Bail denied, citing extreme risk to public safety and possibility of continuing illegal activity.
Court emphasized that liberty is not absolute, especially in cases involving serious public threats.
Significance:
Reinforced principle that risk to society is a valid ground for denying bail.
Highlighted the judiciary’s role in balancing individual rights vs collective security.
Case 6: State vs. Sunita Karki (High Court, 2021)
Facts:
Sunita Karki was accused of cyber fraud targeting multiple victims.
She applied for bail arguing first-time offense and no flight risk.
Court Analysis:
Considered:
Financial crime vs violent crime
Risk of tampering with digital evidence
Accused’s clean background
Judgment:
Bail granted under conditions:
Surrendering devices to authorities
Regular police reporting
Prohibition on contacting victims
Significance:
Demonstrated that first-time offenders in non-violent crimes may obtain bail.
Introduced the concept of technological safeguards as part of bail conditions.
Key Principles from Nepalese Bail Jurisprudence
Presumption of Liberty:
Bail is the default; pre-trial detention is exception.
Balancing Test:
Courts balance individual liberty against public safety, risk of flight, and integrity of trial.
Conditional Bail:
Courts often impose conditions: travel restrictions, police reporting, surety, or surrender of documents.
Denial of Bail:
Justified in cases of serious violent crimes, terrorism, organized crime, or risk of obstruction.
Must be reasoned and proportionate.
Humanitarian Grounds:
Health, age, family responsibilities, or first-time offenses can favor bail.
Conclusion
Nepalese bail jurisprudence reflects a careful balance between personal liberty and societal interest. Courts increasingly rely on individualized assessment rather than blanket rules. Landmark cases like Krishna Bahadur KC, Purna Bahadur Thapa, and Bimal Gurung illustrate this nuanced approach: liberty is respected, but not at the cost of public safety or fair trial integrity.
RELATED Blog
comments