Who is Inam Sapkota, the man linked to Cholendra Rana and top police officials?

Inam Sapkota was a previously little-known 30-year-old whom police began investigating after examining former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana’s mobile phone. Investigators found repeated calls between the two men. They said the frequency appeared suspicious because no obvious personal or professional connection was known.

Police traced Sapkota to Tribhuvan International Airport and took him to a confidential safe house for questioning. They also examined two phones seized from him. WhatsApp conversations showed contacts with senior police officials, sitting and former judges, politicians and lawyers. Investigators said he appeared to act as an intermediary for people seeking promotions or help with court cases.

Sapkota reportedly acknowledged the contacts, but police still do not know whether he delivered what people wanted. His links to Nakkhu Prison and people connected to Deepak Bhatta and businessman Sulav Agrawal widened the inquiry. Police are examining whether court interventions or information leaks occurred.

Phone records and WhatsApp messages showed that Sapkota had an unusually broad network across Nepal’s justice, political and security circles. Police found repeated calls with former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. They also found conversations with senior Nepal Police officials, sitting and former judges, politicians and lawyers.

The messages suggested more than casual contact. Investigators said people waiting for police promotions appeared to seek Sapkota’s assistance. People facing cases allegedly approached him to get matters settled in court. His messages also showed interest in police procurement, including uniform and clothing contracts, which he discussed with junior police officers.

Sapkota reportedly admitted having these contacts, but investigators have not established whether he successfully influenced decisions. They are examining whether any interventions occurred, whether information was leaked, and how his contacts related to the complaint alleging collusion in judicial proceedings. The records provided leads, not proof that every proposed favour was delivered.

An intermediary is a person who stands between two sides and carries messages, introductions or requests. In this case, police suspected Sapkota of connecting people who wanted official or judicial help with people who might influence decisions. That role matters because it can hide who is really requesting an intervention and who may benefit.

Investigators said people in line for police promotions appeared to seek Sapkota’s assistance. People facing criminal cases allegedly approached him to get matters settled in court. His phones also showed links with judges, police officials, politicians and lawyers. Police found contact with people at Nakkhu Prison, including Deepak Bhatta, a family member and a group associated with Sulav Agrawal.

Sapkota reportedly acknowledged the contacts, but police have not established whether he delivered any promised result. The investigation therefore focuses on the mechanism: who contacted him, whom he contacted, what information or requests moved through him, and whether any official or judicial decision changed.

The allegations against Deepak Bhatta involved two different financial claims. The first was an alleged banking offence involving Rs421.89 million. The second was a money-laundering claim involving Rs26.63 billion. These figures describe the scale of the case, but they are allegations rather than findings established by a court.

Bhatta had spent three months in custody awaiting trial after the Special Court and Patan High Court ordered that he remain detained. His family then approached the Supreme Court to challenge those orders. The size of the claims, and rumours that he might be released before Dashain, drew attention from senior government officials.

The investigation later connected Bhatta’s case to Sapkota through contacts involving Nakkhu Prison. Police also found links to another family member and a group associated with businessman Sulav Agrawal. Investigators are examining whether those connections relate to alleged court fixing, information flows or efforts to influence Bhatta’s proceedings.

An investigation of this kind could determine whether alleged court fixing, leaked information or collusive arrangements actually occurred. It could also identify the people involved, clarify whether Sapkota merely carried requests or helped secure decisions, and test whether judicial or police processes were improperly influenced. The excerpt does not report a final finding.

Police are examining Sapkota’s phones, his WhatsApp contacts and his links to Nakkhu Prison. They are checking connections involving former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, Deepak Bhatta, a family member and a group associated with Sulav Agrawal. They also want to know whether Sapkota delivered what contacts sought.

The likely immediate consequence is a wider inquiry into officials, lawyers, politicians and other connected people. Evidence could lead to further questioning or legal action if wrongdoing is established. However, the supplied text ends before describing possible overseas assets or the investigation’s final results, so those consequences cannot be stated as facts.

Court fixing or judicial interference means attempting to manipulate a court case, procedure or outcome through improper influence. The source describes an anonymous complaint alleging interference and collusive arrangements in proceedings at the Supreme Court and elsewhere. It does not establish that those allegations were proven.

Such interference could involve arranging access to judicial figures, passing information, seeking a favourable order or pressuring people connected to a case. The investigation examined calls between Sapkota and Rana, along with Sapkota’s WhatsApp contacts with judges, police officials, politicians and lawyers. Police are still trying to determine whether any intervention actually occurred.

The danger is that a criminal trial may stop being decided by evidence, law and open procedure. A defendant could receive an unfair advantage, or another party could be disadvantaged without knowing why. It could also damage trust in courts. In this case, further investigation is needed before judging anyone’s guilt or confirming that fixing occurred.

Money laundering is the concealment or transformation of money obtained through illegal activity so it appears to come from a lawful source. The article identifies a money-laundering claim against Deepak Bhatta, but it does not explain the alleged laundering method or mention overseas companies, apartments or bank accounts.

In general, assets and accounts in other countries can make investigators follow more jurisdictions, ownership structures and transactions. Companies may hold property or receive payments in someone else’s name. Apartments can store value, while bank accounts can move or divide funds. These arrangements may obscure who controls the money and whether it came from corruption or another illegal transaction.

Those possibilities are general explanations, not findings about Bhatta or Sapkota. The supplied article only states that Bhatta faced a Rs26.63 billion money-laundering claim and that he was in custody. It provides no confirmed details about overseas assets, companies, apartments or accounts, so those links require separate evidence.