{"id":23201,"date":"2026-08-18T18:19:46","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T12:34:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=23201"},"modified":"2026-08-18T18:19:46","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T12:34:46","slug":"police-seek-fresh-arrest-warrant-for-journalist-kishor-shrestha-court-returns-file-over-incomplete-documents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=23201","title":{"rendered":"Police Seek Fresh Arrest Warrant for Journalist Kishor Shrestha, Court Returns File Over Incomplete Documents<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dragon Media Correspondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

Police have sought permission to rearrest senior journalist Kishor Shrestha under a separate complaint, a day after he was released from custody following a Supreme Court order. The Lalitpur District Court, however, returned the police file, saying the required documents were incomplete.<\/p>\n

Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Ruby Kumari Thakur filed a complaint against Shrestha at the District Police Range, Lalitpur, on Monday. She alleged that material published by Jana Aastha had harmed her character, reputation and social standing and sought legal action under the Electronic Transactions Act.<\/p>\n

Based on the complaint, Lalitpur police approached the District Court seeking permission to arrest Shrestha for investigation.<\/p>\n

Lalitpur District Court spokesperson Tikadhwaj Karki confirmed that police had sought arrest permission but said the file was returned because the necessary documents had not been completed.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have asked them to bring additional documents. Once those are submitted, a decision will be made on whether or not to issue an arrest warrant,\u201d Karki said.<\/p>\n

Police are reportedly preparing the required documents before approaching the court again.<\/p>\n

Shrestha had earlier been arrested in a separate case involving alleged violation of personal privacy. On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered that he be released from custody and investigated while on appearance guarantee or regular reporting terms.<\/p>\n

A joint bench of Justices Dr Nahakul Subedi and Balkrishna Dhakal found, on the basis of the available facts, that continued custodial investigation was not necessary.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court did not halt the investigation or issue a final ruling on whether Shrestha had violated privacy rights. The substantive legal questions remain subject to further investigation and judicial determination.<\/p>\n

The attempt to seek another arrest warrant immediately after Shrestha\u2019s release has renewed debate over the use of arrest and detention in disputes arising from published media content.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t