KATHMANDU: Mohammad Aftab Alam’s release from Nakhu Prison on May 28, 2025, following an acquittal order by the Birgunj Bench of the Janakpur High Court, has reignited national debate over justice, political interference, and impunity in Nepal. A Nepali Congress leader, Alam had earlier been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Rautahat District Court for allegedly burning bombing victims alive in a brick kiln in 2008. The High Court overturned the verdict citing lack of concrete evidence. This explainer will address the timeline of the case, court proceedings, political protection, and what Alam’s release means for Nepal’s justice system.

What happened in Farhadwa, Rautahat, on the eve of the first Constituent Assembly elections in 2008, and how is Aftab Alam connected to it?

On the eve of the first Constituent Assembly (CA) elections on April 9, 2008, a tragic and gruesome incident unfolded in Farhadwa VDC-4 (now part of Rajpur Municipality), Rautahat district. According to police investigations and multiple eyewitness accounts, a deadly explosion occurred during the illegal manufacturing of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) inside a farmhouse belonging to Sheikh Idris, a late Nepali Congress leader and uncle of Mohammad Aftab Alam, a powerful NC politician and then CA election candidate from Rautahat-2.

Alam is accused of orchestrating the clandestine bomb-making operation with the intention of spreading terror and capturing polling booths during the election. He had allegedly brought in skilled bomb-makers from across the Indian border and stockpiled explosives, arms, and raw materials in preparation for coordinated election violence.

During the process, an IED accidentally detonated, killing three people instantly and critically injuring many others, including individuals later identified as Trilok Pratap Singh and Oshi Akhtar. Rather than seeking medical attention or notifying authorities, Alam and his associates reportedly administered sedatives to the wounded and disposed of them in an appalling manner—by burning them alive in a nearby brick kiln in Rajpur to eliminate all evidence of the crime.

Eyewitnesses later recounted the horrifying scene, stating that some of the injured victims screamed and pleaded for help as they were dragged toward the kiln. Fearful that the incident would be exposed, Alam and his aides are said to have carried out the killings to silence the victims and cover up the operation. It is believed that more than 20 people may have been killed in the incident, though the exact death toll remains unconfirmed due to the destruction of evidence.

The case lay dormant for nearly a decade before resurfacing, triggering renewed public outrage and calls for justice in one of the most brutal political crimes in Nepal’s democratic history.

How did the police initiate an immediate cover-up of the Rautahat bombing, and what role did SP Laxman Neupane play in obstructing justice from the outset?

In the incident, 22-year-old Trilok Pratap Singh of Yamunamai Rural Municipality–4, and 20-year-old Oshi Akhtar were allegedly thrown alive into the chimney furnace while still injured. Eight days after the incident, on Baisakh 6, 2065 BS (April 18, 2008), Singh’s father Shree Narayan and Oshi’s mother Ruksana Khatun went to the District Police Office to file a formal complaint. However, no action was taken.

A police team that had reached the site had already prepared a field report stating that no bomb explosion had occurred.

Then Rautahat District Police Chief SP Laxman Neupane—who was later killed in the Tikapur incident—had informed then Chief District Officer Durga Prasad Bhandari that although a bomb had exploded in Rajpur, there had been no damage.

Bhandari later testified that he had instructed SP Neupane at the time to investigate the matter. His own statement indicates that SP Neupane had attempted to downplay the incident. It was under Neupane’s direction that the field report was prepared immediately. As a result, SP Neupane did not register the complaints filed by Singh and Khatun. After being ignored, both victims’ families sent their complaints via postal mail on Baisakh 9 (April 21, 2008).

On Baisakh 18 (April 30, 2008), police summoned both complainants to identify and verify the victims based on the complaint. Following the registration of the complaint, on Asar 9, 2065 BS (June 23, 2008), Aftab Alam and four others appeared at the District Police Office.

 On the same day, under SP Neupane’s direction, police recorded their statements. Despite the serious allegations, and although suspects are usually kept in custody for up to 25 days for investigation in such cases, the police completed the interrogation and submitted the case to the District Government Attorney’s Office on the same day—using their influence and power.

That very day, District Government Attorney Dhruba Mani Gyawali decided not to pursue a case against Alam and the others. This decision by the district attorney was upheld by the Hetauda Appellate Court and later endorsed by the Office of the Attorney General in Kathmandu.

How did the Office of the Attorney General and then-Attorney General Yagya Murti Banjade contribute to covering up the Rautahat bombing case?

The Rautahat bombing case not only exposed deep political criminality but also institutional complicity at the highest legal levels. After the police and District Government Attorney refused to pursue charges against Aftab Alam and his associates, the case file was reviewed successively by the Appellate Government Attorney Office in Hetauda and then forwarded to the Office of the Attorney General in Kathmandu. On Asar 30, 2065 BS (July 14, 2008), then-Attorney General Yagya Murti Banjade formally endorsed the decision not to proceed with prosecution.

Banjade’s justification was startling. His office claimed there was no certainty that the people said to have been killed were actually dead, nor was there sufficient evidence proving that their deaths were caused by criminal actions.

The final paragraph of his decision even stated that a case could be reopened later if evidence of criminal intent surfaced. However, the Office of the Attorney General simultaneously instructed that the case file be closed within three months, effectively shutting the door on justice.

This high-level cover-up allowed Aftab Alam to evade legal scrutiny for over a decade. Only after political winds shifted did the vague clause about reopening the case led to his eventual arrest 12 years later, on October 13, 2019.

What challenges delayed justice after the Rautahat bombing, how did political influence stall the investigation?

On Shrawan 25, 2065 BS (August 9, 2008), Shree Narayan Singh and Ruksana Khatun filed a petition at the Supreme Court demanding the reversal of the district attorney’s earlier decision to dismiss the case.

On Jestha 16, 2069 BS (May 29, 2012), Justice Sushila Karki (later the first female Chief Justice of Nepal) and Justice Bharat Bahadur Karki issued a directive order in the name of the government, stating that a serious investigation must be carried out and a case filed. Following the verdict, the victims approached the Verdict Enforcement Directorate, but their pleas went unheard.

While still pursuing justice, in mid-Magh 2069 BS (early 2013), Oshi’s mother Ruksana Khatun was shot dead. She was returning home to Saruatha from her maternal home in Durga Bhagwati Rural Municipality, when assailants hiding in a sugarcane field ambushed and killed her.

Shree Narayan Singh, fearing for his own safety, became terrified and anticipated he might be killed next. On Jestha 18, 2072 BS (June 1, 2015), he filed a contempt of court petition through advocate Pushpa Raj Paudel in Kathmandu.

On Asar 6, 2076 BS (June 20, 2019), the Supreme Court sent an official letter to the Office of the Attorney General asking why the verdict had not been implemented.

Every year since the verdict, the Supreme Court’s Verdict Enforcement Directorate had sent instructions to the district attorney’s office to proceed with the investigation.

Records show that since Jestha 16, 2069 BS (May 29, 2012), the Directorate has sent five official letters asking for the decision to be implemented. In turn, the district attorney’s office sent routine letters to the District Police Office.

The District Police, however, appointed investigation officers merely for formality but never advanced the investigation. Then SP Bhupendra Khatri (now SSP) confirmed that aside from these token efforts, nothing substantial happened over 12 years. Fifteen police chiefs were transferred in and out of the district during this period.

SP Khatri, who was promoted from DSP and assumed command of Rautahat police on Falgun 2, 2075 BS (Feb 14, 2019), began reviewing old unresolved cases and prioritized the one involving Alam. The course of the investigation changed only after SP Khatri took charge. Earlier, SP Mahesh Bikram Shah, who was transferred to Rautahat on Ashoj 25, 2069 BS (Oct 11, 2012), had attempted to pursue the Rajpur bombing case but was transferred just four months later.

Similarly, then SP Yagya Binod Pokharel (now retired from DIG), who assumed office on Mangsir 16, 2073 BS (Dec 1, 2016), claimed that his office had received no letter from the Supreme Court. Pokharel later served as the DIG of Madhesh Province Police Office, Janakpur before retiring.

How was Alam finally arrested?

For years, due to political influence, the investigation did not move forward. It was only after repeated Supreme Court directives and orders from the Verdict Enforcement Directorate that the case began to progress.

On Jestha 14, 2076 BS (May 28, 2019), the District Government Attorney’s Office instructed the District Police Office, Rautahat, to investigate the incident. Despite annual correspondence from the Supreme Court asking about the status of the investigation, district police chiefs lacked the courage to pursue the case against Alam.

SP (now SSP) Khatri confirmed that past investigations were extremely weak. He said his team was able to make contact with injured victims and former brick kiln workers, ultimately pushing the investigation toward a logical conclusion. “We faced many challenges and worked day and night to gather evidence,” he said.

The case posed the challenge of arresting 11 individuals, including Congress leader Alam, his brother Mohammad Mehtab Alam, Sheikh Seraj, Sheikh Fazlehaq, Sheikh Bhadai, Sagir Alam, Badri Sahani, Gaurishankar Sah, Mukti Sah, Mohd Mobin Alam, and Sheikh Jumain (also known as Sheikh Malkar).

After receiving the Supreme Court’s directive, SP Khatri’s team convened to make a plan. The police anticipated possible clashes if former Minister Alam was arrested in his village, so Khatri devised a strategy to isolate and detain him.

On Ashoj 26, 2076 BS (Oct 13, 2019), then DSP Nabin Karki (now SP) arrested Alam at the gate of Sheikh Idris’s house in Rajpur.

The police immediately began locating eyewitnesses and injured survivors. Most of the former brick kiln workers were from Bara district.

Even after his arrest in the bombing case, Mohammad Aftab Alam continued to threaten police officers, displaying his old arrogance. Upon being taken into custody on Ashwin 26, 2076 (October 13, 2019), under the Supreme Court’s order, Alam boldly warned then DSP Nabin Karki, saying, “You think it’s a joke? There will be fire in this district! Watch carefully, I will put handcuffs on you.”

What was the outcome of the Rautahat District Court’s verdict against Aftab Alam and his co-accused, and how did the trial proceed?

On Baisakh 13, 2081 BS (April 25, 2024), the Rautahat District Court sentenced Mohammad Aftab Alam, his brother Mohammad Mehtab Alam, and two others—Sheikh Seraj and Badri Sahani—to life imprisonment for allegedly burning bombing victims alive by disposing them in a brick kiln chimney. Although the crime occurred in 2008, Aftab Alam was arrested only on Ashwin 26, 2076 BS (October 13, 2019), under charges of murder and destruction of evidence. His arrest marked the beginning of formal judicial proceedings in the case.

Following his arrest, the Rautahat District Court ordered Alam to be remanded in custody on Kartik 29, 2076 BS (November 15, 2019). He was incarcerated at Nakkhu Jail in Lalitpur and remained there until his release on May 28, 2025. His brother Mehtab is serving time at Gaur Jail, Rautahat.

On Kartik 18, 2076 BS (November 4, 2019), police filed charges against 11 individuals including Aftab Alam, Mehtab Alam, Sheikh Seraj, Sheikh Fazlehaq, Sheikh Bhadai, Sagir Alam, Badri Sahani, Gaurishankar Sah, Mukti Sah, Mohammad Mobin Alam, and Sheikh Jumain alias Sheikh Malkar. They were charged with murder, attempted murder, and use of explosives.

Presiding Judge Matrika Prasad Acharya handed down the life sentences under the provisions of the former Muluki Ain (Civil Code). Court registrar Uddhav Dhodari confirmed that Mukti Sah was acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence. Meanwhile, the court decided to suspend proceedings for the absconding accused—Mohammad Mobin, Sheikh Fazlehaq, Sheikh Bhadai, Sahil Alam, Gaurishankar Sah, and Sheikh Jumain—for the time being.

The hearings, which had been ongoing for three days before the verdict, featured arguments from government prosecutors Badri Bahadur Karki, advocates Pushparaj Paudel, and Dinanath Rizal. The defendants were represented by then Nepal Bar Association President Gopal Krishna Ghimire and other defense lawyers.

How did Nepali Congress leaders, including party president Sher Bahadur Deuba, respond to Mohammad Aftab Alam’s arrest?

On October 18, 2019, shortly after Mohammad Aftab Alam’s arrest, Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba publicly condemned the detention, calling it a conspiracy against the party. Speaking at a training program held by the party’s Central Policy Research and Training Academy in Bode, Madhyapur Thimi, Deuba alleged that the government was deliberately reviving a 12-year-old case to target the Nepali Congress politically.

He claimed that the police action against Alam was a calculated attempt to tarnish the party’s image at a critical juncture. Deuba criticized the government for what he described as using law enforcement agencies as tools for political vendetta. His speech underscored a broader strategy within the party leadership to protect their members, especially those accused in sensitive cases, as a means of preserving internal party cohesion and power.

Deuba urged party representatives to focus on serving the public effectively to distinguish the Congress from the ruling communist parties, highlighting the competitive political environment in which such allegations and arrests played out.

Other senior party leaders echoed similar sentiments. Ram Chandra Poudel—then a senior leader of the Nepali Congress and now the President of Nepal—accused the government of undermining democratic achievements and vowed that the Nepali Congress would not tolerate any interference with core democratic values.

Krishna Prasad Sitaula went further, accusing the media of participating in a larger conspiracy against the party. He singled out news coverage of Alam’s case as an example of efforts to discredit the Nepali Congress, framing the case as part of a “grand design” against the party’s interests.

Together, these statements revealed how the Nepali Congress leadership sought to shield Aftab Alam and other party figures implicated in criminal cases, prioritizing internal party power and political survival over accountability. Their defense reflected a common political practice where protecting influential party members accused of wrongdoing was seen as essential to maintaining unity and control within the party’s ranks.

Why was Mohammad Aftab Alam acquitted and released by the Birgunj Bench of the Janakpur High Court despite his earlier life sentence?

The Birgunj Bench of the High Court’s decision on May 28, 2025, to acquit Mohammad Aftab Alam—previously sentenced to life imprisonment by the Rautahat District Court for allegedly burning victims alive in a brick kiln—raises serious questions about judicial lapses and accountability.

Despite overwhelming accusations that Alam and his associates brutally burned injured victims Trilok Pratap Singh (Pintu) and Osi Akhtar alive after a bomb blast incident on the night before the Constituent Assembly election (27 Chaitra 2064 BS / April 9, 2008), the High Court overturned the conviction on grounds that “concrete evidence” was lacking. This reasoning disregards the gravity of the crime and ignores the testimonies and circumstantial evidence presented over years.

The High Court’s verdict heavily relied on the fact that the investigations “could not conclusively confirm” the bomb blast incident and that earlier, the Attorney General’s Office had ordered no case be filed on 30 Jestha 2065 BS (June 12, 2008) citing insufficient proof. However, this ignores that the Supreme Court itself had annulled that decision on 16 Jestha 2069 BS (May 29, 2012) and mandated reinvestigation, highlighting the earlier dismissal was premature.

More troublingly, the High Court accepted the argument that forensic evidence proving victims were burned alive was absent, despite strong circumstantial and testimonial evidence. Such a strict evidentiary standard in a case involving politically influential figures like Alam raises doubts about impartiality and possible influence undermining justice.

The decision to acquit after more than 12 years of delayed investigation, following Alam’s arrest in 2076 BS (October 2019), risks sending a message of impunity.

It dismisses the horrific nature of the crime and the suffering of victims’ families, while raising concerns about judicial thoroughness and the protection of human rights.

In sum, the High Court’s verdict appears to reflect a concerning tolerance for evidentiary gaps in cases involving powerful political actors, undermining public trust in the judiciary’s ability to deliver justice impartially and effectively.

What are the possible further legal proceedings following Mohammad Aftab Alam’s acquittal, and what challenges could affect these proceedings?

Following the acquittal of Mohammad Aftab Alam by the Birgunj Bench of the Janakpur High Court, several potential further legal steps could unfold. The victims or their representatives may choose to file an appeal at the Supreme Court, seeking a review and possible reversal of the High Court’s decision. Such an appeal would aim to challenge the acquittal by presenting additional evidence or arguing procedural or substantive errors in the lower court’s judgment.

Alternatively, the government attorney’s office could also appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. However, this possibility appears less likely given the political dynamics surrounding the case. Mohammad Aftab Alam’s affiliation with the Nepali Congress, a major political party, and previous statements by senior party leaders defending him raise questions about the government’s willingness to pursue a vigorous appeal.  Political considerations may lead to a reluctance to challenge the High Court verdict, effectively shielding Alam from further prosecution.

The case has already seen significant political interference and delays, with earlier investigations hampered by political pressure. This political cover could influence the government’s decision not to appeal, thereby limiting the victims’ avenues for legal recourse.

In summary, while the victims may appeal to the Supreme Court to seek justice, the likelihood of government-initiated appeal is diminished due to political protection for Alam. This situation could complicate efforts to hold him and other accused accountable, prolonging the victims’ struggle for justice.

How does the case of Mohammad Aftab Alam reflect the growing political immunity and impunity in Nepal’s justice system?

The case of Mohammad Aftab Alam starkly illustrates the increasing political immunity and impunity that have become entrenched within Nepal’s justice system. Despite serious allegations—including involvement in a brutal bombing and murder by burning victims alive—Alam’s case experienced prolonged delays, lackluster investigations, and significant political interference over many years.

Alam’s arrest came 12 years after the incident, and even then, the investigation faced repeated obstruction, with police chiefs often reluctant to pursue the case fully due to his political connections.

Senior leaders of the Nepali Congress openly defended Alam, framing his arrest as a political conspiracy and attempting to protect him to maintain internal party strength. This political shielding undermined the impartiality of law enforcement and judicial processes.

Even after being sentenced to life imprisonment by the District Court, Alam was later acquitted by the High Court, primarily because of insufficient evidence—a situation critics argue is influenced by weak investigations and political pressure rather than genuine lack of culpability. The reluctance of government attorneys to appeal the acquittal further underscores how political calculations can override the pursuit of justice.

Such cases highlight a troubling trend in Nepal where powerful politicians and their affiliates often evade accountability, emboldened by political patronage and interference. This growing political immunity erodes public trust in legal institutions, weakens the rule of law, and perpetuates a culture of impunity where justice is selectively applied based on political considerations rather than facts.