The debate on the bail petition in the fraud case of the Suryadarshan Cooperative in Pokhara, which also involves Rabi Lamichhane, the chairman of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), is ongoing at the Kaski District Court. Today, Lamichhane’s lawyers have started their arguments, and this process is expected to take several more days.
Previously, on the prior day, the lawyer of another defendant, former DIG Chhabilal Joshi, presented their argument. Among them, Senior Advocate Shambhu Thapa took the longest time. His sharp arguments created a sense of “vibrations” in the courtroom. He posed tough questions that challenged the police investigation. He argued that the repeated supplementary prosecutions in an already registered case seemed to serve political revenge rather than any legitimate purpose. He also argued that the Cooperative Act cannot apply to individuals not affiliated with the cooperative.
Although Thapa represented Chhabilal, his arguments addressed the case involving Rabi Lamichhane in a similar context due to the overlapping issues.
Some of the key points of Thapa’s argument from the previous day:
The fraud case of Suryadarshan Cooperative was filed on 18th of Asar, 2080 (July 2023) with 19 defendants. On 5th Poush, 2081 (December 2023), a supplementary prosecution was filed against the three defendants. Shortly after, on 7th Poush, another supplementary prosecution was filed, implicating Chhabilal Joshi, Rabi Lamichhane, and others. Thapa questioned how many times a case can be re-filed under supplementary prosecution and which legal provision allows this continuous filing of cases.
According to a study report by the Pokhara Metropolitan City, the cooperative’s principal amount was around NPR 1.31 billion. In the first prosecution, a claim of NPR 1.11 billion was made. However, after the software related to the cooperative was found in Chhabilal’s rented house in Kathmandu, the study showed the total loan amount to be NPR 1.31 billion. Thapa asked, how did the claim of NPR 1.51 billion arise in the second prosecution when the principal amount was only NPR 1.31 billion? Why is the claimed amount different in each prosecution?
The Suryadarshan case had been under trial since 18th Asar, 2080. Thapa criticized the parliamentary investigation committee for intervening in an ongoing case, stating that such an act violates the principle of separation of powers and leads to a conflict between the executive and the judiciary.
Thapa also argued that the supplementary prosecution based on the parliamentary committee’s report was malicious because the report did not contain any direct complaints. He claimed that the report had been manipulated to force a complaint, which he considered fraud.
The report of the Pokhara Metropolitan City indicated that the cooperative’s funds went to Gorkha Media, but no case had been filed against Gorkha Media, nor was there any claim against them. Thapa questioned why this was the case.
Thapa emphasized that Rabi Lamichhane and Chhabilal Joshi’s involvement in the case was related only to the issue of money and share purchases, not fraud. The real fraud perpetrators were the cooperative’s officials, particularly one named GB, who transferred the money. Thapa argued that involving Lamichhane and Joshi in a fraud case was legally incorrect.
For fraud cases, the Criminal Code 2074 (2018) under Section 249 should apply. Thapa stated that the fraud laws weren’t being used against the primary fraudster, GB Rai, but were instead being misapplied to target Lamichhane and Joshi using the Cooperative Act.
The Cooperative Act only applies to individuals directly involved with the cooperative, which did not include Lamichhane or Joshi, yet they were charged under Section 122 of the Cooperative Act, which Thapa argued was wrong.
Thapa also pointed out that while loans had been taken by many individuals from the cooperative, no cases were filed against them. The political revenge appeared to be the sole purpose of the actions against certain individuals.
Regarding the issue of asset laundering, government lawyer Sanjeev Regmi had claimed that this case was similar to that of Ichchha Raj Tamang, who was the chairperson of the cooperative and responsible for managing deposits of seven to eight billion. Thapa questioned why the cases of Lamichhane and Joshi, who were not affiliated with the cooperative, were being compared to that of Ichchha Raj Tamang’s.