Kishor Shrestha Turns Emotional Before Supreme Court, Alleges Mental Harassment in Custody

Dragon Media Correspondent

Senior journalist and Janastha Publication Pvt. Ltd. Chair Kishor Shrestha has told the Supreme Court that he was falsely implicated in the case due to prejudice and subjected to mental harassment while in police custody.

Shrestha personally addressed the division bench of Justices Dr. Nahakul Subedi and Balkrishna Dhakal on Monday during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition filed against his detention.

He told the bench that he had been kept in the same detention facility with a large number of individuals accused in drug-related cases and had been unable to sleep properly for five days.

“A journalist who works with a pen has been kept together with 55 people accused in drug-related cases. I have not been able to sleep at night for five days. I have not even been allowed to meet my family members and lawyer separately,” Shrestha told the bench.

He complained that the treatment he had received in custody had caused him severe mental stress. Shrestha reportedly became emotional several times while making his statement before the Court.

Recalling the risks he had faced during his long journalistic career, Shrestha said he had remained resilient even under difficult circumstances in the past.

“I did not panic even when I was disappeared by the Army. I have always taken risks while reporting,” Shrestha said. “But this time, even the iPads and computers used by the children of relatives living with me were seized. Their right to study has been taken away. That is why I am under stress.”

Police had seized computers, mobile phones, laptops, iPads and other electronic devices from Shrestha’s residence and office. The Supreme Court, in its order on Monday, directed that the seized materials be returned.

During the hearing, Shrestha’s wife and habeas corpus petitioner, Saraswati Shrestha, also addressed the bench and described the situation that the family said it had been facing.

She alleged that since the formation of the new government, individuals had been stationed outside their residence for hours using mobile phones, while police vehicles had also been positioned near the house, creating psychological pressure on the family.

“Why should matters related to journalism come into my home? Perhaps the children of relatives living with me may have made a mistake, but what wrong have I done?” she asked before the bench, demanding justice for the family.

Saraswati also complained that objectionable material had previously been circulated about her and her late mother-in-law, but that police had failed to respond adequately even after complaints were lodged with cybercrime authorities.

After completing her statement, she was seen consoling her emotional husband, telling him not to panic or be afraid.

The allegations made by the Shrestha couple regarding detention conditions, surveillance and psychological pressure have not yet been publicly addressed in detail by the concerned police authorities. Their statements therefore remain their allegations and personal accounts presented before the Court.

Shrestha was arrested late last Wednesday by a joint team from the Kathmandu Valley Crime Investigation Office and the District Police Range, Kathmandu, near his residence in Nakhu, Lalitpur.

Police initiated the investigation following a complaint related to the publication of a photograph involving a lawmaker and a woman, and subsequent news coverage of the matter.

Shrestha has been accused of an offence under the Privacy Act, 2018. His wife subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition at the Supreme Court challenging his arrest and continued detention.

Earlier on Monday, the Kathmandu District Court had granted police permission to keep Shrestha in custody for an additional four days for investigation.

Later the same day, however, the Supreme Court concluded that there was insufficient justification to continue holding him in detention and issued a mandamus directing the District Police Range, Kathmandu, to release him on bail or place him under reporting conditions while the investigation continues.

The Supreme Court did not terminate the investigation against Shrestha. It ruled that the inquiry could proceed, but that keeping him in custody was not necessary for that purpose.

Shrestha’s account before the bench has added another dimension to the case. Beyond the existing debate over press freedom and the right to privacy, his allegations concerning detention conditions, access to legal counsel and family members, and treatment of a journalist in custody have raised broader questions about human rights and custodial practices.