“I just wanted to become a mechanic,” said Uma Shankar Rayabhar, a 24-year-old man from Bara district. Instead, he spent nearly a year in jail for a crime he didn’t understand—and likely didn’t commit. Rayabhar was detained for 11 months after being falsely implicated in a massive tax fraud. Unable to afford Rs 7.5m bail set by the Patan High Court, he sat in prison while the real masterminds disappeared. Only after legal activists and the Supreme Court intervened did he secure his freedom—on a drastically reduced bail of Rs 25,000.
In a justice system built on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” stories like Rayabhar’s should not exist—yet they do, and in alarming numbers. His story is not an exception but a mirror reflecting Nepal’s deeper crisis: pretrial detention that punishes poverty, not guilt. Nepal’s pretrial detention regime has quietly become one of the most underrated human rights crises of our time. It’s time to ask: Is our justice system choosing jail when bail would suffice?
Nepal’s prisons are bursting not with convicted criminals but with pre-trial detainees. Over 50 percent of inmates in Nepal’s prison system are in pretrial detention—awaiting trial, without a conviction, presumed innocent by law but treated otherwise in practice.
Pretrial detention refers to the practice of holding individuals in custody before their trial, often due to the inability to secure bail. Nepal faces this issue because of inadequate legal representation, excessive cases and socio-economic disparities. In a country like ours, pretrial detention has become a tool of punishment even before any proof, especially for backward, poor and marginalized groups.
Despite Nepal’s constitutional guarantees and various international obligations, this issue has been rising. Many of these detainees suffer for years without any formal charges, adequate legal aid and in some cases without a court hearing. While pretrial detention was intended as a temporary measure to ensure the appearance of accused individuals at trial, the practice has become a significant human rights concern, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities and undermining the principles of justice.
What the law says?
Pretrial detention in Nepal is primarily regulated under a combination of constitutional guarantees, criminal procedural laws, and judicial discretion. Article 16 and 17 (Right to live with dignity and Right to freedom) of Constitution of Nepal (2015) has mentioned that ‘every person has right to live with dignity and personal freedom. No one shall be deprived of liberty except in accordance with the law. Also, Article 20 (Rights relating to justice) has mentioned about ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’, right to fair trial, right to consult a legal practitioner and right to legal aid. The Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 governs arrest, investigation, bail, and trial proceedings. Section 67 (To hold the accused in detention) states ‘A court can order the release of the accused on bail, guarantee, or personal recognizance, also the law gives judges broad discretion in setting bail conditions based on gravity of the offence, possibility of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence and the economic status of the accused.
Also, Section 68 (Conditions for Pretrial Detention) states, ‘If the court finds the accused likely to abscond, commit another offense, or destroy evidence, it can order detention. And Judges may also deny bail in offenses punishable by more than 3 years. The Criminal Code, 2074 has mentioned that ‘serious charges like murder, rape, organized crime, tax fraud usually lead to denial of bail. Legal Aid Act, 2054, provides for free legal counsel to indigent defendants.
While various laws regulate Pretrial detention in Nepal, the execution is poor. It’s still limited only in the letters of law.
Detained without trial—When time becomes the sentence
In Nepal, laws often collapse in practice. The practice of holding individuals in custody for extended periods without charging them with a crime or giving them a trial makes it miserable to the people. Thousands of individuals—many of them poor, illiterate, or from indigenous or marginalized communities are held behind bars for months or even years without a single day in court. For these detainees, the very act of being arrested can result in long-term imprisonment before any formal conviction, turning time itself into an unofficial sentence. This is often done to neglect formal legal proceedings.
According to the social or economic background of the accused, the legal system of Nepal is determined. There can be delays, discretionary decisions just based on individual status. The time spent detained itself becomes the punishment, violating fundamental rights to due process and a fair trial. The consequences are severe: people lose jobs, families are disrupted, mental health collapse, and reputations are destroyed—all before a judge has decided. In this system, time becomes the sentence, and the mere accusation, rather than evidence, is enough to lock someone away.
What needs to change?
Nepal’s jails are operating at nearly 200 percent more than its capacity. Inmates lack proper food, hygiene, or medical care—violating basic human dignity. If Nepal can increase the use of bail, especially for non-violent offenses, and simplify the bail process, there’s a high chance of maintaining the prison system and fulfilling basic rights of prisoners. Moreover, there is lack of adequate legal representation for defendants which makes pretrial detention more complex. The judicial body should provide free and effective legal representation to the needy ones regardless of their socio-economic background. Legal aid programs could be expanded to ensure that all individuals who are facing charges know or understand about their rights, to have free legal aids. This would help ensure effective advocacy for their rights.
On the other hand, public awareness is crucial for addressing stigma surrounding pretrial detention and bail. Different campaigns and programs should be conducted to advocate about rights of defendants, to foster a more compassionate society. This shift in public perception could lead to greater support for reforms aimed at reducing pretrial detention and promoting justice. Furthermore, we should explore different alternative measures to incarceration. Measures like electronic or digital monitoring or regular check-ins should be in cooperation. These measures would help both individuals and the governmental bodies to reduce the burden on the prison system.
The demand for reform is clear as Nepal continues to negotiate the complexity of its legal system: it is time to reconsider pretrial detention and give justice for all top priority.
Muskan Karmacharya
BA LLB 4th Year
Kathmandu School of Law
