Related Rule
Practice Relating to Rule 99. Deprivation of Liberty
Section A. General
Nepal’s Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance (2006) provides regarding preventive detention:
1) If there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person must be prevented from committing any acts that could result in a terrorist and disruptive act, the Security Official may issue an order to hold such person under preventive detention in a humane place for a period not exceeding 6 months. If there are grounds to believe that the person held under preventive detention must be prevented from committing any terrorist activities for an additional period, the Security Official, having approval of His Majesty’s Government Ministry of Home Affairs, may, under this Section, issue an order to hold him under preventive detention for another six months.
2) For the purpose of issuing a detention order in accordance with Sub-Section (1), information received from any individual, institution or agency in respect of such person, his activities, acts performed by him in his capacity as a member or official of any terrorist organization or any act as prescribed or ordered by such organization or any responsibility as has been assigned to him or as accepted by him or other similar acts that may indicate his involvement in terrorist and disruptive acts shall be considered “reasonable grounds”. 
Nepal, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance, 2006, Section 9.
In 2007, in the Bajracharya case, Nepal’s Supreme Court held:
There is no dispute … [concerning] the fact … that … the applicant [was detained] on 21 November 2003 by the United Security Forces and was transferred to Raj Dal Barrack and … was [subsequently] released on 13 April 2004 [based] on the guarantee of his wife, because this has been accepted by the defendants in their written responses. The act of holding [an] opponent in detention and … [subsequently] asking [him] to [present himself] periodically [to the Army Barrack because of] the charge of involvement in Maoist activities is seen to have clearly violated the personal liberty enshrined in the then Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, and the present Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007. The prevailing laws do not empower [the] Army Barrack to [detain] anybody … and the defendants also are not able to show such legal provision. Therefore the act of the defendant, the Raj Dal Barrack, [namely] asking [the] applicant to … [present himself] every month, is not legally justifiable. The responsible agenc[ies] of the State which were supposed to … [be] conscious [of] the rights of the individuals are seen rather [as] involved in the act of … unreasonabl[y] restricti[ng] … the fundamental rights of the individuals, therefore, the act of … [detaining the applicant and requiring him to periodically present himself] … by [the] Raj Dal Barrack is hereby quashed by the order of certiorari.
… As there is a possibility of arrest for not … [presenting himself at] the Barrack on the called date, [the order of Mandamus] is also issued … in the name of the opponents not to arrest or [order the] arrest [of] the applicant along with other general citizens. 
Nepal, Supreme Court, Division Bench, Bajracharya case, Order, 31 August 2007.
In 2004, in a declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law, the Prime Minister of Nepal stated:
3. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. Measures will be undertaken to prevent illegal or arbitrary detention …
10. For the effective judicial remedy, the orders issued by the Court, including the writ of habeas corpus shall be honoured. The right to verify the status of the detainee, his/her health condition, and the right to identify the authorizing and arresting authorities shall be guaranteed. Any malicious exercise against such rights to remedy shall be punishable by law. 
Nepal, Declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law, 26 March 2004, §§ 3 and 10.
In 2007, in its comments to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Nepal wrote:
Recommendation, paragraph 14 [in which the Committee against Torture, having noted the difficult situation of armed conflict faced by Nepal, expressed concern about the number of detainees in prolonged detention without trial under the Public Security Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive (Control and Punishment) Ordnance and about the extensive resort to pre-trial detention.]
3. The Terrorist and Disruptive Act (Control and Punishment) Ordinance, 2004 has been repealed. No person has been detained under the Public Security Act. The Interim Constitution of Nepal has made mandatory provision that any detained person has to be present before the competent judicial authority within 24 hours of the arrest and one should not be held longer without the order of the court. The Government of Nepal has been seriously implementing these provisions and is totally committed to uph[o]ld this constitutional imperative. The Government has sincerely adhered to the principles of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedom[s] and is totally committed to uphold[ing] them. Article 118 of the Civil Code (Muluki Ain) requires an accused to remain in judicial custody only for trial of certain serious crimes or under certain exceptional circumstances. In [the] rest of the cases, [the] accused are tried under bail or without requiring them to remain in custody.
Recommendation, paragraph 16 [in which the Committee against Torture expressed concern about the non-compliance with court orders by members of security forces, reportedly including re-arrests.]
Independence of judiciary
5. The State has adhered to the principle of judicial supremacy and all security agencies have been issued appropriate instructions to abide by the judicial orders of the courts. They have also been instructed not to arrest the individuals who have been released by the order of the court. They have [been] no instances of such arrest[s] by the security personnel after April 2006. …
Interrogation and detention
13. At present there is not a single individual detained in the Army barracks. The incidence in the past should have to be viewed in the context of armed conflict in the country prevail[ing] at th[e] time. Now this has been effectively ended. …
15. No one has been held in incommunicado detention and the Government has no policy of such practice under any circumstance[s].
21. … The Comprehensive [P]eace Agreement (CPA) signed between the Government and the Nepal Communist [P]arty (Maoist) on November 21, 2006 unequivocally prohibits arbitrary detention … and is committed to end impunity. … The CPA also provides that no one shall be subject to arbitrary detention, kept in captivity or abducted. 
Nepal, Comments by the Government of Nepal to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, 29 January 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/NPL/CO/2/Add.1, submitted 1 June 2007, §§ 3, 5, 13, 15 and 21.