On Friday, the petition submitted by cricketer Sandeep Lamichhane in the court of Judge Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada was the last hearing. Accused of raping a minor, Lamichhane is pleading to be able to go aboard to play cricket.
As soon as the hearing came, advocate Murari Sapkota argued that Lamichhane should be allowed to go abroad as he was not banned from playing cricket in Nepal as an international cricket tournament is going on.
Advocate Sapkota claimed that the victory was achieved because Sandeep played for Nepal. He said that since the High Court had banned him from going abroad, he had to come to the Supreme Court for seeking permission.
After that, senior advocate Shambhu Thapa said that permission was sought for Sandeep not for other matters but for playing cricket.
Khatiwada said, 'There are some procedures (of the court). A petition demanding that the order of the High Court be quashed comes before a single bench. A single bench cannot overturn a higher order. Please justify why the regular (court) procedure should be violated?'
He said that only the joint bench of the Supreme Court hears this kind of petition and asked why there is a special situation that should be heard by a single bench.
Advocate Ghimire said that due to the deadline and urgency, Lamichhane should be allowed to go abroad within a short period of time. He clarified that a separate permission has been requested as it is not possible through the regular process.
He showed the Manager of Cricket Association Nepal (CAN) Binod Das and asked him to speak. Sitting at the end of the bench, he got up and said, 'CAN's management arranges his trip, we will get his passport as soon as we reach Dubai and he will not be able to do anything else except play. We will take responsibility to bring him back safely.'
The government's petition, which reached the joint bench of the Supreme Court on Friday, was not heard. The government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding that Lamichhane should be kept in prison overturning the order of the High Court.
READ ALSO:
