Legal and Judicial
Published 19 August 2026 · Last updated 19 August 2026
How to challenge a bail or detention order in Nepal is an important question for an accused who has been ordered into Thuna (थुना), required to furnish Dharaut (धरौट), Jamanat (जमानत) or a Bank Guarantee, or who believes that the amount fixed by the court is excessive or otherwise unreasonable.
Under Chapter-7 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 (Muluki Faujdari Karyabidhi Sanhita, 2074), the principal provisions governing detention, bail, Dharaut and Jamanat are Sections 67 to 80. Most importantly, Section 73 expressly provides a remedy before the appeal-hearing court against a Thunchek, detention, bail, guarantee or bank-guarantee order.
This article explains how to challenge bail and detention orders in Nepal, based specifically on the statutory framework you provided, including Section 67, Section 68, Section 71, Section 72 and Section 73, and explains the practical relationship between Thunchek, Thuna, Dharaut, Jamanat and appellate remedies.
Adalat Lawyers presents this article for general legal information concerning criminal litigation in Nepal.
At the Thunchek (थुनछेक) stage, the criminal court determines how an accused will remain during the pendency of the criminal case.
Depending on the circumstances and applicable provisions, the court may:
Chapter-7 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 is specifically titled “Provisions Relating to Detention, Bail and Guarantee.” The Nepal Law Commission's text places Sections 67–80 within this Chapter.
Therefore, when an accused wants to challenge a Thunchek order, the first task is to identify exactly what the lower court ordered and under which statutory provision.
The central statutory provision for challenging a detention or bail order is Section 73.
In substance, Section 73 provides:
A party dissatisfied with a Thunchek order or the Dharaut, Jamanat or Bank Guarantee fixed under Chapter-7 may make an application to the appeal-hearing court up to one level.
There is also an important proviso.
Where the issue concerns the illegality of a detention order in a case involving an offence punishable by:
the provision permits an application to an appeal-hearing court more than one level above, in the circumstances specified by the Code.
This makes Section 73 the principal statutory route for challenging a Chapter-7 Thunchek, detention, Dharaut, Jamanat or Bank Guarantee order.
Section 73 is broader than simply challenging “bail.”
A dissatisfied party can challenge:
If the accused has been ordered into detention or released subject to security, the relevant order can be challenged.
If the accused believes that the order sending him or her to Thuna is legally improper, Section 73 may provide a remedy.
If the court has fixed an unreasonable Dharaut amount, the party may seek review by the appeal-hearing court.
An accused may challenge an excessive Jamanat requirement.
The requirement or amount of a Bank Guarantee can also fall within the Section 73 remedy.
The Nepal Law Commission expressly identifies these categories in Section 73.
Before challenging a detention order, the defence should carefully examine Section 67.
Section 67 provides circumstances in which the court may remand an accused in detention for trial.
Under Section 67(1), the provision concerns cases where the accused is alleged to have committed:
The provision applies where the immediately available evidence shows the accused as guilty or provides a reasonable basis to believe the accused is guilty, and the court must state reasons for detention.
Therefore, a detention challenge should not simply state:
“The accused should be released.”
It should identify why the statutory requirements for detention under Section 67 are not satisfied.
A lawyer challenging Thuna should examine several questions.
The precise statutory offence must be identified.
The maximum punishment can determine whether Section 67 is relevant.
This can be important under Section 67(1)(b).
Section 67 refers to the evidence immediately available and the reasonable basis for believing that the accused is guilty.
Section 67 expressly refers to detention being ordered with reasons.
The defence should also consider the special circumstances specified in Section 67(2).
This structured approach can form the basis of a Section 73 petition.
Section 67(2) provides additional circumstances in which the court may remand an accused in detention.
These include circumstances where:
Accordingly, a detention challenge should address the specific ground relied upon by the lower court rather than treating Section 67 as one single test.
If the case does not fall within Section 67, Section 68 becomes important.
Section 68 provides for the court to take:
where the statutory conditions are met.
The Code also provides that the Bank Guarantee must be unconditional and renewable for the period specified by the court.
If the accused fails to furnish the required security, Section 68(2) provides that the accused shall be remanded in detention.
Therefore, if an accused has been detained merely because the required security could not be furnished, the legal strategy may involve examining both:
Section 69 should not be overlooked.
Where the case does not fall within Sections 67 or 68, the accused is to be kept on Tarikh after appearing before the court.
This means that the statutory framework is not simply:
Detention vs Bail.
There can also be:
Tarikh / recognizance.
Accordingly, where a person has been ordered to furnish security even though the case arguably falls under Section 69, this may become a relevant issue in challenging the order.
Section 71 is particularly important for both the defence and prosecution.
The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, while examining evidence:
The Code specifically states that merely because an accused was not initially detained, or because security was not initially taken, this does not prevent the court from subsequently ordering detention or requiring security.
Therefore:
An initial bail order does not necessarily remain unchanged throughout the trial.
Conversely, Section 71(2) provides an important route toward release.
If a reasonable basis arises showing that an accused detained under Section 67 or Section 68 is not guilty, the court may hear the matter and order release from detention at any stage of the proceedings.
Sometimes the accused is not ordered into detention but faces an extremely high Dharaut or Jamanat amount.
Section 72 becomes important.
The Code requires the amount of Dharaut, Jamanat or Bank Guarantee to be fixed reasonably, taking specified circumstances into account.
The relevant matters include:
The defence should therefore explain why the amount is disproportionate when measured against these statutory considerations.
Section 72(2) is especially useful where the problem is not detention itself but the amount of Dharaut, Jamanat or Bank Guarantee.
It provides that where a party demonstrates to the appeal-hearing court that the amount demanded is less or excessive and therefore unreasonable, the appeal-hearing court may hear the matter and order the amount to be increased, reduced or otherwise modified.
This creates a clear statutory mechanism for challenging an unreasonable security amount.
For example, if an accused is technically released but the Jamanat amount is financially impossible to furnish, the defence may need to challenge the amount, not merely request “bail.”
This distinction is important.
Deals specifically with the reasonableness of the amount of:
Provides a broader remedy for a person dissatisfied with:
Therefore, a lawyer should identify the exact grievance before drafting the application.
Section 73 refers to the party dissatisfied with the order.
Depending on the circumstances of the case, the relevant party may be the accused or another party entitled to challenge the particular order.
The precise procedural standing and filing requirements should be determined from the case record and applicable court practice.
For an accused, the most common issues are:
“Why was I detained?”
or:
“Why is my Dharaut/Jamanat unreasonably high?”
The statutory language of Section 73 refers to the appeal-hearing court.
The appropriate forum depends on:
Therefore, it is not safe to assume that every Section 73 petition is filed in the same court.
The correct appellate forum should be confirmed from the actual case and original order.
This is one of the most important parts of Section 73.
The general rule is:
A person dissatisfied with a Chapter-7 Thunchek/detention/bail/security order may petition the appeal-hearing court up to one level.
However, the proviso creates a special rule where the issue is the illegality of detention and the offence is punishable by:
In such circumstances, Section 73 permits a petition to an appeal-hearing court more than one level.
This should not be confused with an automatic right to appeal every bail decision through unlimited levels.
The statutory proviso is specifically concerned with the illegality of the detention order and the seriousness of the offence.
A strong petition should identify the legal defect clearly.
A useful structure is:
State:
Identify precisely what the lower court ordered.
For example:
“The accused was remanded in detention under Section 67.”
or:
“The court ordered Jamanat of NPR .”
Identify the relevant provision, such as:
Explain why the order is legally or factually unsustainable.
Refer to the evidence relevant to the detention/bail question.
Clearly state what the accused wants:
Depending on the facts, possible statutory arguments can include:
If the offence does not meet the statutory category relied upon by the court, that should be addressed.
Section 67 refers to the immediately available evidence and reasonable basis for believing the accused is guilty.
If detention was based on one of the circumstances in Section 67(2), the defence should challenge whether that circumstance actually exists.
Age, physical condition and other statutory considerations may be important.
The Code expressly contemplates reasons for detention.
Where Section 67 does not apply, the defence may argue for release on appropriate security.
Where neither Section 67 nor Section 68 applies, Tarikh may be the statutory position.
If the court has granted release but fixed an excessive Jamanat amount, the application should not merely say:
“The amount is too high.”
Instead, the defence should demonstrate why it is unreasonable under Section 72.
For example:
Show the actual financial circumstances of the accused.
Explain relevant family responsibilities.
Provide supporting evidence where relevant.
Clarify whether the accused has previous convictions.
Address the seriousness and actual circumstances of the offence.
Explain the applicable statutory punishment.
Where relevant, address the compensation component.
The objective is to persuade the appeal-hearing court that the original amount should be reduced or modified.
Before challenging a Thunchek order, the lawyer should obtain and carefully examine:
The exact wording of the original order is particularly important.
Section 79 requires the court to prepare a memorandum of order when it:
The memorandum is accompanied by reasons.
Therefore, the original written Thunchek order should be carefully examined before drafting a challenge.
The appellate court needs to know what the lower court actually decided and why.
Section 80 concerns the detention warrant (थुनुवा पूर्जी).
Where a person is detained under Chapter-7, the competent authority must detain the person pursuant to the court's order and provide the detention warrant in the prescribed form, stating the legal basis and reason for detention.
Accordingly, a detention challenge should also consider whether the detention documentation corresponds with the court's order and statutory requirements.
The exact procedure can depend on the court and nature of the application.
Broadly, the appellate court considers:
The appellate court may determine whether the detention/security order should remain, be modified, or otherwise dealt with according to law.
For an excessive security amount, Section 72(2) expressly allows the appeal-hearing court to alter or modify the amount where it finds the amount unreasonable.
The statutory wording of Section 73 refers to a party dissatisfied with the Chapter-7 order.
Therefore, the challenge mechanism is not necessarily limited to an accused seeking release.
Depending on the circumstances, a party may challenge an order granting or refusing detention/security.
The precise standing and remedy should be assessed from the particular case.
Yes.
This is expressly contemplated by Section 71.
Even if the accused was initially released, the court may subsequently reconsider the accused's status while examining evidence and may order detention under Section 67 or require security under Section 68.
The earlier release itself does not prevent later action.
This is why compliance with every court order and appearance date is essential after release.
Section 68(2) provides that an accused who fails to furnish the required Dharaut, Jamanat or Bank Guarantee shall be remanded in detention.
Therefore, if the court fixes a security amount that the accused cannot practically furnish, an immediate legal assessment is important.
A Section 72/73 remedy may be relevant where the amount is alleged to be unreasonable.
The consequences can be serious.
Under Section 74, the bail/bond documentation contains a condition concerning appearance at the time and place specified by the court.
Section 75 addresses forfeiture where a person who furnished Dharaut fails to appear.
Thus, a person released on Dharaut or Jamanat should treat every court date as mandatory unless the court has otherwise ordered.
Yes, subject to the statutory provisions.
Section 76 provides that where an accused is ultimately acquitted, the Dharaut or Jamanat taken during the proceedings is to be returned or released, except where otherwise provided by law.
Where an accused is subsequently detained in a case after having furnished security, the Code also addresses release of the earlier security.
A separate statutory issue arises where a detained accused's case has not been adjudicated within the period specified in Section 77.
Where the conditions of Section 77 are satisfied, and the case cannot be adjudicated within one year from the first date fixed for examination of evidence, the case may proceed by taking Dharaut or Jamanat.
However, Section 77 contains significant exceptions, including certain offences punishable by life imprisonment or ten years or more, where the accused is detained under Section 67.
Therefore, Section 77 should be considered separately from the Section 73 challenge.
Section 78 provides an important statutory limitation:
An accused cannot be detained for a period exceeding the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed if the charge is proved.
This provision should be considered where the accused has spent a substantial period in custody.
A lawyer should compare:
the period already spent in detention
against
the maximum imprisonment applicable to the charge.
Before challenging a detention or bail order in Nepal, ask:
Adalat Lawyers is a litigation-focused law firm in Nepal assisting clients with criminal litigation and related procedural matters.
A detention or bail challenge should be handled by first examining the actual Thunchek order, rather than relying on a generic bail template.
The legal review should cover:
1. Charge analysis
Identify the exact offence and punishment.
2. Section 67 analysis
Determine whether the detention criteria have been properly applied.
3. Evidence analysis
Assess whether the immediately available evidence supports the statutory detention standard.
4. Section 68 analysis
Determine whether release on Dharaut, Jamanat or Bank Guarantee is legally available.
5. Section 72 analysis
Challenge an excessive or unreasonable security amount.
6. Section 73 remedy
Identify the appropriate appeal-hearing court and formulate the petition.
7. Section 71 review
Where circumstances or evidence have changed, consider whether a fresh release application is appropriate.
8. Section 77/78 review
Where detention has become prolonged, assess the statutory limits and exceptions.
Under Section 73 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074, a person dissatisfied with a Chapter-7 detention or Thunchek order may make a petition to the appeal-hearing court up to one level. Special provision exists for challenging the illegality of detention in certain serious offences punishable by life imprisonment or five years or more.
Section 73 is the principal provision allowing a dissatisfied party to petition the appeal-hearing court regarding an order of detention, bail/bond, guarantee or Bank Guarantee under Chapter-7.
Yes. Section 72(2) specifically allows a party to approach the appeal-hearing court where the Dharaut, Jamanat or Bank Guarantee amount is excessive or insufficient and therefore unreasonable. The court may alter, reduce, increase or modify the amount.
Yes. A Jamanat amount can be challenged under the Chapter-7 framework. Section 72 requires the amount to be fixed reasonably after considering specified factors, while Section 73 provides a petition mechanism against the relevant order.
In the special circumstances stated in Section 73, yes. Where the question concerns the illegality of detention in an offence punishable by life imprisonment or five years or more imprisonment, the Code permits a petition to an appeal-hearing court beyond one level.
The defence should examine whether the offence actually falls within Section 67, whether the evidence satisfies the statutory threshold, whether the specific grounds in Section 67(2) exist, and whether the court adequately stated the reasons and legal basis for detention.
Yes. Section 71 permits the court, at any stage of the proceedings while examining evidence, to order detention under Section 67 or require Dharaut, Jamanat or Bank Guarantee under Section 68. The initial release does not permanently prevent later reconsideration.
If the required Dharaut, Jamanat or Bank Guarantee is not furnished, Section 68(2) provides for detention. If the amount is unreasonable, the defence should promptly consider the remedies under Sections 72(2) and 73.
Generally, yes. Section 76(2) provides that Dharaut or Jamanat taken during the case should be returned or released if the accused is ultimately acquitted, except where otherwise provided by law.
Section 77 provides a specific mechanism where a case cannot be adjudicated within one year from the first date fixed for examination of evidence, subject to important statutory exceptions. Section 78 also limits detention to the maximum imprisonment that could be imposed if the charge were proved.
A Thunchek, Thuna, Dharaut or Jamanat order is not necessarily the end of the legal process.
The National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 establishes a specific statutory framework for challenging these orders.
The key provisions should be read together:
Most importantly, Section 73 provides the principal statutory mechanism for challenging a Chapter-7 detention, bail, Dharaut, Jamanat, guarantee or Bank Guarantee order.
A successful challenge should therefore be built around the specific statutory error or unreasonableness in the original order. The defence should identify the exact offence, applicable punishment, evidence, Section 67 grounds, Section 72 factors and appropriate Section 73 remedy.
For an excessive Dharaut/Jamanat, the focus should be on reasonableness under Section 72.
For an allegedly unlawful Thuna/detention order, the focus should be on Section 67 and the legality of the detention, together with the remedy provided by Section 73.
For changed circumstances during trial, Section 71 may provide another route for seeking release.
For prolonged detention, Sections 77 and 78 should also be examined.
Adalat Lawyers can assist with the assessment and preparation of legal remedies concerning Thunchek, detention, bail, Dharaut, Jamanat, Bank Guarantee and criminal litigation in Nepal, based on the actual case record and court order.
Subscribe for a monthly briefing on Nepal's corporate law, regulatory developments, and firm insights.
Download a PDF copy of this publication to read offline or share with colleagues.
Download PDFInsights
