Kathmandu, Nepal: The investigation surrounding former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana has widened following his detention by police last month, with the Department of Money Laundering Investigation now searching his residence and the homes of several people linked to him.
The department raided Rana's house on Wednesday and seized some documents and electronic devices, according to a senior security source. A senior department official confirmed that other houses were also searched but declined to disclose the full details, saying the investigation was still under way.
Sources have identified former High Court judge Nawaraj Thapaliya and former Supreme Court information technology expert Dipak Timalsina among those whose homes were searched. Other names have also appeared in media reports, but the department has not officially released a complete list.
The latest searches have added a financial investigation to a case that began with what police initially described as a security operation.
Rana was taken from his Maharajgunj residence at about 3 a.m. on September 27, or Ashoj 11, according to the Nepali calendar. Police initially confirmed that he had been arrested. Several hours later, however, the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office said he had been taken to a safe place because of a security threat and that no criminal case was being pursued against him. He was released at about 2 p.m. the same day.
Police have not publicly explained what the security threat was, who posed it or why Rana had to be taken from his home instead of being provided additional security there.
That unanswered question has become more important as the matter has developed into a wider investigation.
From a security operation to a wider investigation
The circumstances of Rana's detention were questioned from the beginning.
Police officers went to his house while he and his family were asleep and asked him to accompany them. According to his family, the officers said there was a security threat. Rana reportedly asked whether additional security could instead be provided at his residence, but police took him to the Crime Investigation Office in Teku.
The National Human Rights Commission also tried to meet Rana while he was being held but was not allowed to do so. He was later released to his relatives. Police said they would continue to provide security at his residence.
The changing description of the operation—from an arrest to protective custody—left questions over its legal basis.
There is still no public evidence to establish that the government used the security explanation to conceal another purpose. But the subsequent developments have made the original operation a matter of greater public interest.
According to reports, police examined Rana's mobile phone after taking him to the office. Information obtained during the investigation then led police to Inam Sapkota, a person described by investigators as an intermediary.
Sapkota was later taken into custody by the Special Bureau and handed over to Kathmandu police. He remains under investigation on an indecent-behaviour charge, although sources say investigators are also examining his contacts and communications.
Sapkota's contacts brought more people into the investigation
Investigators are looking into Sapkota's reported contacts with Rana and businessman Deepak Bhatta, among others.
According to sources cited in the media, investigators are examining whether Sapkota had acted as a go-between in efforts to influence court cases.
Those claims have not been established by a court.
The investigation therefore appears to have moved beyond the question of why Rana was taken to the police office. Investigators are now examining whether people around him had attempted to influence judicial proceedings and whether money or other benefits were involved.
Reports have also linked Bhatta to the investigation. He was transferred from Nakkhu prison to Sindhupalchok prison after the Rana episode. Sources have said investigators are examining whether there were efforts to influence proceedings concerning Bhatta.
Again, these are allegations under investigation, not established findings.
AIG Dahal's suspension adds another layer
The investigation also reached the Armed Police Force after Additional Inspector General Banshiraj Dahal was suspended.
The Home Ministry said Dahal was suspended for allegedly leaking sensitive security information and engaging in conduct contrary to official standards. The ministry has not publicly disclosed what information he allegedly leaked, to whom it was given or for what purpose.
According to sources, Dahal went to the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office in Teku on the night Rana was taken there.
Rana and Dahal are relatives. But investigators later examined Dahal's reported contact with Sapkota as well.
According to sources cited by Onlinekhabar, investigators found communications between Dahal and Sapkota and suspected that sensitive information relating to Rana had been shared through Sapkota. A formal investigation has now been ordered into Dahal.
Dahal's suspension, however, is not a finding that he committed an offence. The government has ordered an investigation, and the facts are yet to be established.
Why the latest raids matter
The involvement of the Department of Money Laundering Investigation has changed the nature of the case.
Until now, much of the reported investigation had centred on Rana's contacts, Sapkota's activities and the alleged sharing of information.
The latest searches indicate that investigators are also examining financial matters.
The department has not yet disclosed the specific financial transactions or assets under investigation. It has also not publicly explained why each of the people whose homes were searched was included in the investigation.
A department official told Kantipur that the searches were still under way and that it was too early to provide details.
This is important because a search does not by itself prove money laundering or any other offence. Investigators still have to establish the source of funds, ownership of assets, financial transactions and their connection, if any, to an offence.
Why Nawaraj Thapaliya is being watched?
Former High Court judge Nawaraj Thapaliya is among those whose residence was searched, according to department sources.
Thapaliya had been appointed a High Court judge during Rana's tenure as chief justice.
He was later removed from judicial service following a Judicial Council investigation into complaints concerning his conduct and performance.
According to reports at the time, allegations against Thapaliya included acting as an intermediary for Rana and taking money from litigants. The Judicial Council investigated the complaints and recommended his dismissal. The council's decision was implemented in February 2024.
Those earlier allegations explain his long-reported connection with Rana. They do not, however, establish that he is involved in the current money-laundering investigation.
What investigators are now examining in relation to Thapaliya has not been officially disclosed.
Timalsina's long association with the Supreme Court
Dipak Timalsina is another person whose residence was searched, according to department sources.
Timalsina had worked in information technology at the Supreme Court and had a long association with the institution.
His name came into public discussion during Rana's tenure as chief justice, particularly during the controversy over allegations that Rana had sought a role in recommending people for ministerial positions in the government led by then-Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.
Timalsina was reported at the time as one of the people being considered.
The controversy was part of the wider allegations surrounding Rana's conduct as chief justice. It does not, by itself, establish any connection between Timalsina and the current money-laundering investigation.
The department has not publicly explained why his residence was searched or what evidence, if any, investigators have obtained against him.
The question over Rana's detention
The sequence of events has also raised questions about the government's handling of the case.
Rana was first taken from his home on the stated ground of a security threat.
Police later said there was no criminal case against him and that he would be released.
Yet, according to subsequent reports, his phone was examined, investigators then focused on Sapkota, Sapkota's contacts led to further inquiries, and a senior security official was suspended.
The money-laundering department has now entered the investigation.
The government has not publicly explained whether these developments were part of the same investigation from the beginning or whether they emerged separately after information was obtained during the initial operation.
That is a significant distinction.
If the government initially acted only because of a security threat and later discovered information requiring investigation, the authorities should be able to explain that sequence.
If the police operation also had an investigative purpose, the legal basis for that action should be clear.
At present, the public record does not establish that the government had an undisclosed political or other motive when Rana was taken from his home.
But the lack of a clear explanation of the original security threat, combined with the later expansion of the investigation, has left room for questions about the government's intention.
Rana's past also matters
Rana's background helps explain why the latest developments are attracting so much attention.
He became chief justice in January 2019. Parliament registered an impeachment motion against him in February 2022, after which he was suspended.
The impeachment process remained unresolved for years.
On September 9 this year, the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench ruled that the impeachment motion had lost its purpose and dismissed petitions challenging a decision by the Federal Parliament Secretariat concerning the motion. The bench was led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma.
Rana's detention came only a few weeks after that ruling.
There is no established evidence that the court ruling and the subsequent police action were connected. But the timing is one reason the government is likely to face questions about the wider context of the investigation.
What remains unclear
Several important issues remain unresolved.
The first is the original security threat. Police have not publicly explained what threat Rana faced.
The second is the legal status of his detention. Police initially described it as an arrest but later said he was taken to a safe place.
The third is the phone investigation. Authorities have not publicly explained what information obtained from Rana's phone led investigators to Sapkota.
The fourth is Sapkota's role. Investigators are looking into his contacts, but it has not been established that he acted unlawfully.
The fifth is the allegation against AIG Dahal. The government has confirmed his suspension but has not disclosed the alleged sensitive information.
The sixth is the financial investigation. The money-laundering department has searched several homes but has not yet publicly explained the financial evidence behind the searches.
These questions will need to be answered if the investigation is to avoid becoming the subject of further political controversy.
Investigation must be based on evidence
The government has the authority to investigate suspected crime, including possible money laundering and attempts to interfere with the justice system.
Rana's former position should not prevent an investigation if there is evidence of wrongdoing. At the same time, a former chief justice's past controversies cannot be treated as proof of a new offence.
The same applies to the other people now being investigated.
Being close to Rana, having worked with him or having communicated with him does not by itself establish criminal conduct.
Investigators will have to show what each person did, what money or information changed hands, and whether those actions violated the law.
That evidence will ultimately matter more than the political speculation surrounding the case.
For now, the clearest fact is that an operation that began with Rana's removal from his home over a stated security concern has expanded into a broader investigation involving police, the Home Ministry, the Armed Police Force and the Department of Money Laundering Investigation.
What remains unclear is whether these are separate investigations that have come together around Rana, or parts of one larger case.
The government has yet to provide a complete explanation.
Until it does, questions over both the original reason for Rana's detention and the purpose and direction of the subsequent investigation are likely to remain part of the story.
