KATHMANDU: The Patan High Court has raised questions over the findings of a special on-site inspection by Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) and the scope of the investigation into the Rs 480 million loan disbursement involving Prabhu Bank and Asian Village Resort Pvt. Ltd.
A joint bench of Justices Arjun Prasad Koirala and Sukriti Parajuli, while hearing the banking offence case, observed that the central bank’s inspection appeared to rely heavily on a one-sided field assessment and questioned why the roles of several bank officials and individuals linked to the disbursed funds were not adequately examined.
The court noted that while certain senior bank officials and borrowers had been named in the investigation, the roles of other officials-including Anjal Sharma, Shailendra Dangol, Dipendra Babu Bista, Sunil Rana, Ramesh Thakka and Yogesh Paudel-had not been sufficiently examined despite their names and involvement being raised during testimony.
The bench also questioned the treatment of individuals whose accounts allegedly received portions of the loan proceeds. It noted that people including Dhanakumari, Krishnakumari, Kamala Adhikari, Urmila Mali, Siddhartha Sharma and Julum Sharma had not been adequately addressed in the initial NRB inspection and subsequent investigation.
The court further observed that the prosecution had acknowledged that some of the land involved in the transaction had subsequently come under the ownership of the debtor company. Portions of the property had also been placed under an administrative freeze, or ‘thado rokka,’ through the land revenue office to protect the bank’s financial interests.
The bench stressed that criminal liability must be assessed on the basis of each individual’s role and evidence rather than by treating all defendants as a single group. It also reiterated the constitutional principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, cautioning against disproportionate treatment at the pre-trial stage.
Considering the nature of the alleged offences, the degree of individual involvement and the evidentiary position at the preliminary stage, the High Court ordered the release of the defendants on specified cash bail or bank guarantees rather than keeping them in pre-trial detention.
The observations could have wider implications for the banking offence case, particularly over the adequacy of the central bank’s inspection process and whether the investigation sufficiently examined all individuals involved in the loan approval, disbursement and use of funds.
