Social media is currently abuzz with comparisons between the pretrial detention orders issued in the cases of Sandeep Lamichhane and Rabi Lamichhane. Many users are raising serious concerns after noticing striking similarities in the language, reasoning, and legal references used in the court’s decisions — despite the fact that these were two very different cases.
Justice Ramesh Dhakal of the High Court Tulsipur was involved in both cases. Legal principles related to pretrial detention and even international case examples mentioned in Sandeep’s order appear to be directly copied in Rabi’s order.
Identical Language and Paragraphs in Orders
In the case against Sandeep Lamichhane, who was accused of rape, the court cited several legal precedents to determine whether he should be detained or released. Interestingly, in the completely unrelated case of journalist Rabi Lamichhane, the court used the exact same style, legal reasoning, and international references to justify his release.
Both decisions contain nearly identical paragraphs, including arguments such as “investigations can proceed without custody” and “detention may harm the public perception of justice.”
Involvement of Judge Dhakal
Judge Ramesh Dhakal was part of both rulings. In Sandeep’s case, he issued a joint order with Judge Swikriti Parajuli. In Rabi’s case, he also played a key role. The similarities in reasoning and wording across both cases have sparked public debate over the originality and impartiality of judicial decisions.
Conclusion
The near-identical nature of both orders and the presence of the same judge in both cases raise serious questions about the transparency and uniqueness of Nepal’s judicial process. It signals a need for deeper discussions on the authenticity and accountability of court rulings in the future.
