Court Orders Release of Durga Prasai After Refusing Further Custody Extension
Nepal’s Supreme Court has ordered the release of medical activist Durga Prasai from police custody after declining to extend his remand for further investigation.
Nepal’s Supreme Court has ordered the release of medical activist and entrepreneur Durga Prasai from police custody, ending his latest stretch of detention after refusing to extend the remand for further investigation.
The decision came during a habeas corpus hearing, where the court found no immediate legal basis to keep Prasai in custody. The order clears the way for his release from the Kathmandu Police Complex after procedural formalities are completed.
What the court decided
According to reports, a joint bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Sharma and Meghraj Pokharel issued the release order after reviewing the detention challenge filed on Prasai’s behalf. The court declined to continue his remand, signaling that investigators had not shown enough cause to justify further confinement.
Prasai had been arrested on February 16 in connection with allegations that he could disrupt an upcoming election. His case quickly drew attention because of his profile as both a medical entrepreneur and a political activist.
Why this case matters
Prasai has repeatedly been at the center of legal and political controversy in Nepal, often appearing in court over disputes tied to protests, public order, and alleged misinformation. This latest ruling adds another chapter to a long-running pattern of detention, challenge, and release.
The Supreme Court’s order is significant because it suggests the judiciary was not convinced that continued custody was necessary at this stage of the investigation. In practical terms, that means the case now shifts back toward the broader legal process outside police detention.
What happens next
Prasai’s release will depend on completion of the required paperwork and custody transfer procedures. Once that is done, he is expected to walk free from police custody unless other legal action intervenes.
The ruling does not erase the allegations against him, but it does mean investigators must pursue the case without the leverage of ongoing remand.