How Inam Sapkota tested the state

Inam Sapkota was a previously obscure 31-year-old man whose arrest opened a wider controversy. The case matters because his communications reportedly connected him with senior political, security and judicial figures. Those links raised questions about access to public power and possible efforts to influence state institutions.

Sapkota was intercepted at Tribhuvan International Airport on September 30. He was preparing to board a Nepal Airlines flight to Delhi and had already cleared immigration. Records show his departure was recorded at 12:15 pm, although the flight was scheduled for 1:25 pm. A cancellation entry appeared at 5:38 pm.

His phone soon became central to the investigation. Police examined communications involving Prime Minister Balendra Shah and adviser Kumar Ben, although the device was reportedly first handled by people in the prime minister’s inner circle. Police have not publicly explained the complete chain of custody or everyone who accessed it.

The case reached across four major parts of Nepal’s state apparatus: the Prime Minister’s Office, police leadership, the security establishment and the judiciary. This breadth matters because the controversy is no longer only about one man’s arrest. It concerns how informal relationships may cross institutional boundaries and affect public decisions.

The Prime Minister’s Office appears through Prime Minister Balendra Shah, adviser Kumar Ben and the office’s inner circle. Police leadership appears through Home Minister Sudan Gurung, Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki and the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office. The security establishment became involved through the stated security rationale for taking Rana to Teku.

The judiciary entered the case through former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana and communications between Sapkota and sitting Supreme Court judges. The article does not establish that every institution acted improperly. It shows that their links created questions about safeguards, accountability and possible judicial impeachment.

The Prime Minister’s Office, or PMO, is the central office supporting the prime minister and coordinating work around the head of government. Access to its inner circle matters because proximity can create influence, credibility and the appearance of official backing. Those effects are especially important when someone is accused of using the prime minister’s name to pursue deals.

Kumar Byanjankar, known as Kumar Ben, told Kantipur that Sapkota was invoking the prime minister’s name to secure deals and pursue other activities. Ben said he learned Sapkota was misusing the name and asked whether Sapkota knew him. Sapkota reportedly tried to establish familiarity by mentioning their shared school, Little Angels School.

The article also says Sapkota’s phone was handed to people in the prime minister’s inner circle after he was intercepted. Police later examined conversations involving Shah and Ben. The unresolved question is whether informal access affected official action or simply exposed alleged name-dropping.

Rana was taken from his Bansbari residence shortly after midnight on September 27 and brought to the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office in Teku. Police later said he had been brought there for security reasons, not arrested. He was released the following afternoon. The episode matters because the decision reportedly followed political pressure and exposed concerns about police independence.

A senior Nepal Police official alleged that Home Minister Sudan Gurung instructed Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki to arrest Rana. Karki questioned the legal basis. The official said Gurung reported pressure from Kumar Ben, who allegedly criticized him for failing to act against influential people and create a buzz. The official also said the PMO’s inner circle feared Rana was using judges to undermine government plans.

Karki initially resisted but eventually agreed. At Teku, police took Rana’s phone and examined WhatsApp communications. Investigators found regular contact between Rana and Sapkota. These accounts remain attributed to an anonymous official, while police publicly described the action as security-related.

The public communications matter because they involve sitting Supreme Court judges, whose decisions carry constitutional and institutional importance. Their exposure has moved the controversy beyond Sapkota’s arrest and into questions about judicial accountability. The article does not conclude that the communications prove misconduct, but it says they raised the possibility of impeachment.

The issue has created a political problem for the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party. The party condemned the arrest of journalists who reported on the exchanges. At the same time, it remains divided over whether judges implicated in the controversy should face impeachment proceedings. That split shows how the case has become both a legal and political dispute.

The immediate consequence is pressure for scrutiny of the judges’ contacts and the institutions around them. Impeachment is now part of political discussion, but the article does not say that proceedings have begun or that any judge has been found guilty. The outcome depends on future political and institutional decisions.

A chain of custody is the documented record of an evidence item’s possession, handling and transfer. It matters because investigators, courts and the public need to know that digital evidence remained secure and unchanged. Without that record, questions can arise about whether information was added, removed, viewed improperly or presented without complete context.

In this case, a senior police official said Sapkota’s phone was handed to people in the prime minister’s inner circle after he was intercepted. Those people allegedly examined conversations involving Prime Minister Balendra Shah and Kumar Ben. The device was then sent for forensic examination. The official said he had not personally seen the exchanges.

The article says police have not publicly established the complete chain of custody. They have also not explained who accessed the phone while it was outside police control. That gap does not prove evidence was altered. It does mean the handling process remains an important unresolved issue in the investigation.

Separation of powers means that political leaders, law-enforcement bodies and courts have distinct responsibilities. Institutional safeguards are rules and independent checks that limit improper pressure. Together, they matter because investigations should follow law and evidence, while judges should decide cases independently rather than serve political interests.

The article illustrates the risk through Rana’s removal from his home. A senior police official alleged that Home Minister Sudan Gurung ordered Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki to arrest Rana and cited pressure from Kumar Ben. Karki reportedly questioned the legal basis before agreeing. Police later described the action as security-related, not an arrest.

Safeguards would require clear legal authority, accountable police procedures, secure evidence handling and judicial independence. The article raises concerns because Rana’s phone was examined, Sapkota’s phone reportedly left police control, and communications involved sitting judges. It does not establish that political influence controlled decisions, but it shows why oversight and transparent procedures are important.