WhatsApp messages reveal contact between Supreme Court justice and detained alleged fixer

The public messages matter because they show direct contact between a sitting Supreme Court justice and a detained intermediary connected to a pending case. They also raise questions about whether someone outside the court tried to influence the outcome.

Sapkota sent Phuyal a screenshot of Rohit Gupta’s habeas corpus petition and wrote, “Please stop this, sir.” He said the prime minister was interested and asked for dismissal. Phuyal replied that there were grounds to release Gupta, but the court required Rs20 million in bail. He also mentioned Rs10 million for Shekhar Golchha, sent the court order, and suggested meeting at the Himalayan Hotel.

The joint bench later released Gupta on bail on September 2. A justice told reporters that the court did not dismiss the petition as Sapkota requested. Phuyal acknowledged speaking with Sapkota, but the published exchange has intensified scrutiny of judicial contacts.

Sapkota is presented as an intermediary, or alleged fixer, who connected with powerful people despite previously being considered an ordinary individual. His communications became important after police arrested him and investigators took control of his mobile phone.

The published material reportedly includes messages with Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal about Rohit Gupta’s case. Separate documents also name Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, RSP lawmaker Bishwaraj Pokharel and police officials in alleged payment records. The article says investigators are examining communications between Sapkota and senior officials, while one police official was dismissed for allegedly sharing information with him.

These links do not by themselves prove bribery or improper influence. They provide leads for investigators, who must verify who sent messages, whether documents are authentic, whether money moved, and whether any court decision was affected. Sapkota remains in custody while that investigation continues.

A habeas corpus petition is a legal request for a court to review a person’s detention. It focuses on whether the detention has a lawful basis. This makes the remedy important when someone argues that authorities are holding them improperly.

Rohit Gupta was ordered into custody pending trial by the Special Court on August 13. A habeas corpus petition then reached the Supreme Court. On September 2, a joint bench of Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and Justice Shrikant Poudel overturned the Special Court’s decision and ordered Gupta’s release on bail. Phuyal later told Sapkota that Gupta had to post Rs20 million.

The article does not say the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Instead, it records a release on bail after the court changed the custody decision. That distinction matters because the court’s action did not match Sapkota’s reported request to dismiss the case, although the contact itself remains under scrutiny.

The article describes two different money figures. The first concerns bail ordered by the Supreme Court in the Rohit Gupta case. The second concerns records circulating on social media that allegedly documented payments linked to senior officials and a politician.

Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal told Sapkota that Gupta had been ordered to post Rs20 million in bail. He added that Shekhar Golchha was asked to post Rs10 million. Separately, the circulated records listed a total of 198,333 across January, November and December. The article does not specify a currency for that second total.

The alleged records name Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma, RSP lawmaker Bishwaraj Pokharel and Armed Police Force AIG Banshi Raj Dahal. They reportedly directed deposits to a Bank of America account belonging to Sapkota’s relative or, in Nepal, to his wife’s Sanima Bank account. The article says the documents remain unverified allegations.

The immediate consequence is reputational and institutional pressure. The published messages show contact between a sitting justice and a detained alleged fixer, while separate records appear to link senior officials and a lawmaker to alleged payments. Neither named justice had issued a response when the report was published.

Possible further consequences depend on evidence. Investigators could examine the phone, bank instructions, account holders, document seals and communications with officials. The article says Banshi Raj Dahal had already been dismissed from service over allegations that he shared information with Sapkota. It does not report charges or findings against the other people named.

The court’s own decision also matters. A justice said the bench did not follow Sapkota’s request to dismiss Gupta’s petition and instead imposed bail. That may weigh against one allegation, but it does not resolve questions about contact, possible payments, or whether other officials breached their duties.

The controversy is part of a broader period of turmoil involving Nepal’s judiciary. The article says controversies mounted after police took former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana from his home on September 27, saying they were providing him security. The event intensified concern about improper influence and court-related dealings.

Sapkota was also arrested on September 27. The article links him to communications with Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and says police are investigating his exchanges with senior officials. It also describes Banshi Raj Dahal visiting Rana late at night after Rana was taken into custody and brought to the Valley Crime Investigation Office. Dahal was later dismissed over allegations that he shared information with Sapkota.

The newly published messages and alleged payment records widen the scrutiny beyond the earlier Rana episode. They name another justice, the chief justice, a lawmaker and police officials. The article says investigators are continuing to examine communications and documents obtained from Sapkota’s phone.

Judicial independence means judges should decide cases according to law and evidence, not instructions from politicians, intermediaries or officials. Evidence standards require investigators and courts to test whether messages, documents and financial records are genuine. Due process requires fair notice, impartial review and an opportunity to respond.

These protections are especially important here because Sapkota reportedly asked Justice Phuyal to dismiss Gupta’s petition, while the court instead ordered bail. Investigators also found documents that allegedly listed payments and carried the seal of a police digital forensic lab. Authentication, chain of custody and independent examination would be needed before such material could prove wrongdoing.

The article shows why independence and evidence rules must operate together. The messages create a serious appearance of improper contact, but justices said alleged financial transactions require evidence. Further investigation must establish what happened without treating publication, contact or suspicion as proof of guilt.