Supreme Court Postpones Hearing in Litchi Orchard Bribery Case Involving Former Ministers Gupta and Shrestha

Kathmandu. The hearing on the corruption case involving former ministers Rajkumar Gupta and Ranjita Shrestha, implicated in the Kaski Litchi Orchard bribery scandal, has been postponed.

The case was scheduled for hearing in the joint bench of Supreme Court Justices Nahakul Subedi and Shrikanta Paudel. Lawyers representing former minister Gupta requested the postponement.

Former minister Gupta approached the Supreme Court after the Special Court ordered him to be held in custody during the trial regarding the Litchi Orchard bribery case. The corruption case against Gupta, former minister Ranjita Shrestha, and the then Chief of the Land Revenue Office, Kaski, Ramchandra Adhikari, is being heard with them in custody.

After the Special Court ordered Shrestha and Adhikari to be released on a bail of five lakh rupees each, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn that order.

Previously, the Supreme Court had ordered the summoning of the case records regarding former minister Gupta's petition. In the Pokhara Litchi Bari corruption case, the bench comprising Special Court Chairman Sudarshan Dev Bhatta and Justices Dilliratan Shrestha and Bidur Koirala had ordered Gupta to be sent to custody during the trial.

The CIAA had filed a corruption case in the Special Court alleging that then-Minister Gupta took a bribe of 53 lakh rupees from a real estate businessman, claiming he would stop the transfer of the Chief of the Land Revenue Office in Kaski and arrange for him to be made a member of the Land Commission.

The CIAA had accused Minister Gupta and former minister Ranjita Shrestha of taking a bribe of 25 lakh rupees through mutual collusion to misuse their positions and provide official favors. Gupta had claimed in his statement to the court that the allegations against him were false and that he had not taken any bribes from anyone. However, the court determined, based on the evidence immediately available, that he could not be considered innocent.