NEPAL: A young man disappears after being arrested by the police. The police deny his arrest and detention 

Dear friends,

According to information that the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received, a 26-year old man has disappeared following his arrest by a joint police team dispatched from the Central Investigation Bureau and the District Police Office, Mahotari on 6 May 2012. Mr. Ajit Kumar Lal Karna was allegedly arrested in connection with an investigation into a recent bomb blast. Subsequent to a habeas corpus petition filed by his relatives, the Supreme Court of Nepal ordered the police to present the victim before the court within five days. In response to this order, the police denied having arrested him, even though five eyewitnesses have stated otherwise. A court-ordered search into the premises of the Central Investigation Bureau yielded no result. The young man’s whereabouts remain unknown. The AHRC is concerned that the police’s refusal to acknowledge the arrest of the victim may lead to further abuses and violations of the victim’s rights.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to information that we have received, the whereabouts of Ajit Kumar Lal Karna, a 26-year old college student, are unknown since his family and neighbours witnessed his arrest by a joint police team on 6 May. The police arrested him in connection to their investigation into the Janakpur bomb blast, which claimed the lives of four people and injured 18 others on 30 April.

Mr. Karna was arrested at around 6:30 pm by a police team led by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhupendra Khatri. According to eyewitnesses, the team included policemen from the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB), Maharajgunj, Kathmandu and the District Police Office (DPO), Mahottari Mr. Karna’s mother and four of his neighbors report that Mr. Karna was unwell and sleeping when police officers came to their residence. The police later claimed that they discovered explosives in Mr. Karna’s residence. However, eyewitnesses report that the police did not find any explosives, and said that they were forced at gunpoint to sign a paper which said that the police had found explosives at the house.

After his arrest, Mr. Kanra was taken to his maternal uncle’s house at Jaleshwor Municipality Ward No- 13, Dhawauli, where he was interrogated. It is not known where he was taken after that. To this date, Mr. Kanra’s whereabouts are unknown.

On 9 May, police officers deployed from the DPO visited Mr. Kanra’s residence, and sealed the main door of his house. Reportedly, the officers then told the family, in a threatening manner, not to break the seal. As such, Mr. Kanra’s family had to live at their neighbours’ house for 15 days. Following pressure exerted by local human rights activists, the house was unlocked.

Mr. Ajit Kanra’s younger brother, Sanjit Kumar Karna, was also arrested from Baneshwor, Kathmandu and taken to the CIB Office, Maharajgunj, Kathmandu on 7 May He was detained and interrogated for two days. He was finally released on 9 May. He was called to the CIB Office on 13 May and asked a number of questions regarding his alleged involvement in the bomb blast. Since the police were unable to confirm his connection to the bomb blasts, he was released later that day.

On 17 May, Ajit’s family members and neighbours filed an application at the District Administration Office (DAO), Mahottari, requesting the immediate protection of Ajit Kumar and his family members. On the same day, the Chief District Officer wrote to the Criminal Case Section of District Police Office, Mahottari enquiring about the request, and sent the application to the DPO Mahottari for information. The DPO did not take any further action.

On 17 May, Sanjit Kumar Karna, the victim’s brother, filed a Habeas Corpus petition at the Supreme Court against DSP Bhupendra Khatri, CIB and the DPO Mahottari.

On 18 May, the Supreme Court issued a show cause order against the defendants, asking them to produce the victim in court within five days. In response to the order issued by the Supreme Court, the defendants separately submitted three written replies. Each reply categorically denies the arrest of Ajit Kumar Karna.

DSP Bhupendra Khatri submitted his reply on 25 May. In the reply, he wrote that the team he led had, in close coordination with the DPO, Mahottari District, arrested one suspect, Jaya Prakash Chaudhari, along with other suspects. The reply also says that during the investigation, the team became suspicious of Jitendra Lal Karna, Ajit Kumar’s older brother, and suspected that he had been involved in the bomb blasts. The statement says that the team found a number of explosives at the house of Jitendra Lal. However, it says that since Jitendra Lal was not found, they did not have any reason to arrest Ajit Kumar.  The statement concluded by demanding the nullification of the writ petition lodged against him.

On 25 May, the police headquarters sent a similar response to the court on the basis of information they had received from the CIB Office. In their response, they asked the Supreme Court to nullify the writ charge against the defendants.

On 24 May, the DPO, Mahottari submitted its written reply to the court. The DPO denied that police officers from the DPO had gone to Ajit Kumar’s house at all, and further denied having recovered explosives at his residence. Their reply emphasized the fact that the DPO had no reason to search for Mr. Ajit Kumar Kunra.

The three replies contradict the statements given that several eyewitnesses that police came to arrest Mr. Kunra, that policemen from the DPO were present at his house and that no explosives were recovered from the house.

On 6 June, with consideration of the responses received from the defendants, the Supreme Court, as per 34 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1992, issued a search warrant to find out where the victim was located. The Court assigned a Supreme Court Officer to promptly search the cells of the CIB Office, Maharajgunj, under the police headquarters. The court further directed that the search must be carried out in the presence of either the applicant or the counsel who has represented the petitioner.

The search was conducted by Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court, Prakash Raut. Mr. Raut submitted his report on 11 June to the Supreme Court, which was limited to the CIB office only. The report stated that the victim had not been found during the court-ordered search. Mr. Raut was also informed that there was no detention cell in the Central Investigation Bureau by the concerned authorities. He was told that detainees were not kept in that bureau, but were sent to the place that the request came from for interrogation. The report further stated that an examination of the Bureau’s records showed that there was no record of Mr. Kunra’s arrest. The report also quoted Deputy Superintendent of Police Bhupendra Bahadur Khatri and other police personnel at the Bureau saying that the victim had not been arrested at all.

During the latest hearing of the case on June 13, as per the submission made by the Counsels of the petitioner, the Supreme Court ordered the collection and submission of the report of an investigation conducted by the National Human Rights Commission in this case.

Mr. Kunra’s family is extremely concerned about the safety and wellbeing of their son. The police’s refusal to acknowledge the arrest and detention of Mr. Kunra has led the family to believe that their son is at risk of further abuse and violation of his basic rights enshrined in the Constitution of Nepal.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
According to the Nepal Interim Constitution, every person arrested by the police should be brought before a judicial authority within 24 hours of his or her arrest. The State Cases Act, 1992 further mandates that no person “shall be detained in custody without a detention letter containing reasons for the arrest.”

“The arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law” constitutes an act of enforced disappearance, a continuous violation of human rights under international law. Nepal has the obligation to ensure that an investigation is conducted into the allegations of disappearances until the fate of the victim is clarified.

The refusal to acknowledge the arrest and detention of Mr. Kunra and the failure to disclose his whereabouts, not only constitutes a violation of his fundamental rights, but also exposes him to potential abuse and further violation of his rights.

At the height of Nepal’s decade-long civil war, Nepal ranked first on the list of countries with the highest number of disappearances. The list was established by the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances in 2003-2004. Since the end of the conflict, no substantial reform of Nepal policing system has been initiated; the structure and personnel in place remain the same. There is no mechanism establishing accountability for human rights violations and abuses of power committed by security forces. Rather, individuals are exposed to abuse and human rights violations during investigations.
__________________________

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please join us in expressing your concern for the victim’s situation by writing to the authorities listed below.

Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary Arrest and Detention.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER