A high-level police source has told Setopati that Kumar Ben, chief adviser to Prime Minister Balendra Shah, kept two mobile phones seized from Inam Sapkota, who is in police custody, at his home for two days before the devices underwent digital forensic examination.
According to the source, Ben kept the phones seized from Sapkota, who is being investigated for alleged money laundering, in his possession for two days before handing them over to the police.
“Before the two phones seized from Inam Sapkota underwent forensic examination, Kumar Ben kept them with him for two days,” the police source told Setopati. “When we tracked the phones’ locations during that period, we found that they were at Ben’s house in Jwagal.”
According to the source, a digital forensic examination conducted after the phones were returned showed that WhatsApp, Facebook, and other social media platforms had been used during that period and screenshots of various contents had also been taken.
The source further claimed that some messages stored on the phones had been deleted, including several exchanges between Sapkota and Ben.
“The forensic examination showed that some messages had been deleted and screenshots of various contents had been taken,” the source said.
According to the police source, records of repeated conversations between Sapkota and Ben on various topics over the past few months were also found on Sapkota’s phone. One topic allegedly discussed was the selection of candidates for the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) in the most recent election.
“We also found a message in which Inam recommended to Ben that Ananta Raj Ghimire should be given the party ticket from Dang Constituency No. 2,” the source said.
The source also claimed that some screenshots published by media outlets recently had been taken by Ben while the phone was in his possession.
According to the police source, although political leadership had previously shown interest in investigations, it was unprecedented for someone to take investigative materials into their own possession and handle them outside official procedures.
The allegation that phones seized during an investigation were taken out of the police’s official system and placed under the control of the prime minister’s chief adviser has raised serious questions about the impartiality of the investigation and the security of digital evidence.
It remains unclear how the seized phones reached Ben before forensic testing, who provided them to him, and why he took possession of the devices.
If unauthorized access to the seized phones is established, the reliability of the digital evidence obtained from them could also come into question.
Setopati sought a response from Ben regarding the allegations.
The outlet sent him four questions concerning the police source’s claims that he had kept Sapkota’s phones at his home for two days, that some messages had been deleted from the phones, that the devices contained conversations about recommending a candidate for Dang Constituency No. 2, and that he had taken screenshots on the phones and provided them to the media.
Ben declined to answer the questions.
“Write it however you like. Whatever I say, you will publish the news according to your own interpretation anyway. So I have no problem with whatever you write,” Ben replied to Setopati.
He neither confirmed nor denied the police source’s allegations.
Earlier, after details of communications between Sapkota and Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal became public, Phuyal also offered an explanation to journalists.
Speaking to journalists at the Supreme Court on October 29, Phuyal said that Sapkota had introduced himself as a person connected to Prime Minister Balendra Shah, and that this was the basis on which they had established contact.
According to Phuyal, at a time when there was speculation that he and some other judges might face impeachment, Sapkota claimed to have access to the prime minister and assured them that they would not face impeachment.
Phuyal also acknowledged meeting Sapkota at Kathmandu’s Hotel Himalaya. He said that he was not alone at the meeting.
Phuyal said that he began to grow suspicious of Sapkota after the latter started showing interest in cases pending before the Supreme Court and attempting to exert pressure.
In particular, Phuyal said, Sapkota had sent messages invoking the prime minister’s name in connection with a case involving Rohit Gupta.
According to Phuyal, as his suspicions about Sapkota’s activities grew, he sent Sapkota’s photograph, contact number, and details of their conversations to the prime minister’s secretariat.
Phuyal said that he had also informed the police about Sapkota, but that police advised him to exercise caution, citing Sapkota’s connections with high-ranking individuals.
He also said that Sapkota was arrested just a few days after the information and evidence had been provided to the prime minister’s secretariat.
After details of Phuyal’s conversations with Sapkota became public, the justice questioned how the information had leaked. He said that he was surprised by the disclosure, maintaining that the published details were not part of the investigation file and questioning who had released them and how.
After details of judges’ communications and alleged financial transactions involving Sapkota became public, the issue was also raised at a full-court meeting of the Supreme Court.
At the meeting held on October 30, participants discussed the need to clarify the reality of the published information and address questions raised about the judiciary. Phuyal also shared his position regarding his contact with Sapkota.
The controversy raised questions about the impartiality of the judiciary and the conduct of judges, prompting calls for further investigation.
Sapkota, a resident of Jhapa, was arrested on September 30.
Police took him into custody while investigating his contacts with former chief justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana and his alleged connections with high-ranking individuals.
According to a police source, after Rana was arrested, police examined his mobile phone and information obtained from the device led investigators to Sapkota.
A team from the Nepal Police’s Special Bureau detained and questioned Sapkota. Investigators also examined his relationship with Rana and his contacts with Armed Police Force Additional Inspector General Banshi Raj Dahal.
Sapkota was initially held in custody on a charge related to indecent behavior. Investigators later expanded the inquiry to include alleged money laundering.
Sapkota’s wife, Kabita Pandey, filed a habeas corpus petition at the Supreme Court, claiming that her husband was being held unlawfully. A bench comprising Justices Hari Prasad Phuyal and Sunil Kumar Pokharel dismissed the petition.
Recently, details of alleged conversations between Sapkota and various high-ranking individuals and judges, reportedly recovered from his mobile phone, have been appearing in the media.
The information about Sapkota that has been published in recent days – and the manner in which Setopati itself obtained the information – suggests intense disagreements and rivalry within Nepal Police over his arrest and the events that followed.
Police officials and influential figures within the ruling party are leaking information about Sapkota to the media in ways that serve their own interests.
