Legal and Judicial
Published 19 August 2026 · Last updated 19 August 2026
Thunchek (थुनछेक) in Nepal is one of the most important stages of a criminal case because it determines whether an accused will remain in detention (थुना) during trial or be released on Dharaut (धरौट), Jamanat (जमानत), bank guarantee, or on Tarikh/recognizance (तारिख). The governing provisions are principally found in Chapter-7 of the Muluki Faujdari Karyabidhi Sanhita, 2074 (National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074), particularly Sections 67 to 80.
For a person facing a criminal case in Nepal, understanding Thunchek vs Bail, Section 67 detention, Section 68 Dharaut/Jamanat, Section 69 Tarikh, and the factors for fixing bail under Section 72 is essential.
This article explains the statutory framework based on the provisions you provided, using the terminology commonly searched in Nepal, including Thunchek, Thuna, Dharaut, Jamanat, Bail, Bank Guarantee, Tarikh and criminal detention.
Adalat Lawyers presents this article as general legal information concerning criminal litigation and Thunchek proceedings in Nepal.
Thunchek (थुनछेक) refers to the court's decision concerning whether an accused should be kept in detention or released subject to bail, Dharaut, Jamanat, bank guarantee or Tarikh during the criminal proceedings.
The statutory framework is found in Chapter-7, “Provisions Relating to Detention, Bail and Guarantee,” of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074.
The Nepal Law Commission's published text identifies Section 67 as the provision concerning detention, Section 68 concerning Dharaut/Jamanat/bank guarantee, and Section 69 concerning keeping an accused on Tarikh in cases outside Sections 67 and 68.
In simple terms:
Thunchek = the court decides the accused's status during the criminal trial.
The possible outcomes can include:
Section 67 is the starting point for understanding Thunchek.
Under Section 67(1), where an accused is charged with specified serious offences and the evidence immediately available indicates that the accused appears guilty or there is a reasonable basis to believe the accused is guilty, the court may remand the accused in detention for trial, giving reasons for the detention.
The provision identifies three principal categories.
Where the alleged offence can result in life imprisonment, Section 67 may apply.
Section 67 also covers offences under Schedule-1 or Schedule-2 where the offence is punishable by imprisonment exceeding three years.
The provision also covers attempt, abetment, criminal conspiracy or being an accomplice to the offences falling within the relevant categories.
Therefore, one of the first questions in a Thunchek hearing is:
What exact offence has been charged, and what punishment is legally prescribed for that offence?
A common mistake is to discuss bail without first examining the charge.
The court must consider the statutory offence and its punishment.
For example, the defence should establish:
This is why a Thunchek application should be based on the actual charge sheet and evidence, rather than a generic request for release.
Section 67 is not limited to the offences described in Section 67(1).
The provision also identifies circumstances in which an accused may be remanded in detention.
These include situations where:
If the accused pleads guilty to the charge before the court, the court may order detention in accordance with the provision.
Where an accused is charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment of one year or more, has no permanent abode in Nepal, and there is a possibility of absconding and subsequently not being apprehended, detention may be ordered.
If an accused failed to appear within the prescribed period pursuant to a warrant and is subsequently arrested and produced before the court without a satisfactory reason for the earlier failure, the detention provision may become relevant.
The provision also addresses an accused who was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment within the three years immediately preceding the present charge.
These circumstances can significantly affect a Thunchek and bail hearing.
Section 67(3) creates an important exception concerning certain vulnerable accused persons.
Subject to the statutory limitation for offences punishable by imprisonment exceeding ten years, the court may release on Dharaut or Jamanat an accused who is:
The court's discretion must still be considered in light of the statutory conditions.
Accordingly, where one of these circumstances exists, the defence should place appropriate supporting evidence before the court.
Section 68 is central to the bail side of Thunchek.
The provision states that, except in circumstances covered by Section 67, where there is a reasonable ground for proving the charge against the accused, the court may take:
and keep the accused on Tarikh.
The Code also requires a bank guarantee to be unconditional and capable of being renewed for the period specified by the court.
Therefore:
Section 67 → detention framework
Section 68 → Dharaut/Jamanat/Bank Guarantee framework
Section 69 → Tarikh where Sections 67 and 68 do not apply
This is the basic structure of Thunchek under Chapter-7.
Section 68(2) is particularly important.
If the accused fails to furnish the Dharaut, Jamanat or bank guarantee required under Section 68, the court shall remand the accused in detention.
In practical terms:
Court orders Jamanat → accused furnishes required security → release
But:
Court orders Jamanat → accused cannot furnish security → detention
Therefore, obtaining a favourable Thunchek order and actually completing the release process are two related but distinct stages.
Section 69 provides that where the case does not fall under Section 67 or Section 68, once the accused appears before the court, the case should proceed by keeping the accused on Tarikh.
This is important because not every criminal case automatically results in either detention or payment of bail.
There is a third statutory possibility:
Tarikh / recognizance.
Thus, the correct legal analysis is not simply:
“Will I get bail?”
It should be:
“Under Chapter-7, does my case require detention, Dharaut/Jamanat, or Tarikh?”
The amount is governed principally by Section 72.
The Code requires the amount of Dharaut, Jamanat or bank guarantee to be fixed reasonably after considering specified circumstances.
These include:
The seriousness of the alleged offence is relevant.
The accused's financial position must be considered.
Family circumstances are also relevant.
The age of the accused is a statutory consideration.
The accused's physical condition may also be relevant.
The court considers whether the accused was previously convicted and sentenced.
The court may consider whether several offences were allegedly committed during the same occasion.
The sentence imposed or imposable and compensation to be borne by the accused may be considered.
The consequences resulting from the alleged offence are relevant.
Whether the accused has pleaded guilty is also identified as a factor.
This means that there is no universal bail amount in Nepal.
If the defence is seeking release on Dharaut or Jamanat, the lawyer should present the relevant Section 72 circumstances systematically.
For example:
Financial condition: Explain the accused's actual financial capacity.
Family condition: Explain dependants and family responsibilities where relevant.
Age/health: Provide supporting documents where applicable.
Previous record: Establish whether the accused has any relevant previous conviction.
Charge: Explain the actual nature and seriousness of the allegation.
Potential sentence: Address the applicable punishment.
Court attendance: Demonstrate the accused's willingness and ability to appear.
A strong Thunchek submission should therefore connect the facts of the accused's case with the statutory factors.
Yes.
Section 70 provides that if the security already taken subsequently appears insufficient, the court may demand additional Dharaut, Jamanat or bank guarantee.
If the accused fails to furnish the additional security, the court may remand the accused in detention.
Therefore, an initial bail order does not necessarily mean that the security requirement can never change.
Yes.
Section 71 gives the court power to reconsider detention or security at any stage of the proceedings while examining evidence.
The court may:
The fact that the accused was not initially detained does not prevent a later detention order merely because the accused was previously released.
This is an important distinction.
Bail is not necessarily permanent until final judgment.
The court can reconsider the accused's status in accordance with Section 71.
Yes, potentially.
Section 71(2) provides that if a reasonable basis arises to establish that an accused detained under Section 67 or 68 is not guilty, the court may hear the matter at any stage and order release from detention.
This means that the defence should continue monitoring the evidence throughout the criminal proceeding.
A Thunchek decision at the beginning of a case does not necessarily end every future possibility of release.
Yes.
Section 73 provides a mechanism for a person dissatisfied with an order concerning:
to petition the appeal-hearing court up to one level.
The statute also contains a special provision concerning the legality of detention in cases involving offences punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment for five years or more, allowing a petition to an appeal-hearing court beyond one level in the circumstances stated in the provision.
Therefore, an accused who considers a Thunchek order legally improper should have the order reviewed promptly.
Section 74 governs the documentation and security arrangements when Dharaut, Jamanat or bank guarantee is taken.
For property-backed guarantee, the court fixes the amount and takes property security corresponding to the amount.
The Code also provides prescribed forms for the relevant deeds.
Where another person furnishes property as guarantee for the accused, that person assumes statutory responsibilities concerning the accused's appearance.
Therefore, a person providing Jamanat for another accused should understand the consequences before furnishing property.
The Code addresses this situation.
Where the value of property furnished as guarantee subsequently decreases, the person who furnished the guarantee must provide property corresponding to the decreased value.
Thus, property Jamanat is not simply a one-time administrative procedure.
The adequacy of the security can remain relevant throughout the proceeding.
Appearance is one of the central obligations associated with bail and Jamanat.
The prescribed deed contains the condition concerning the consequences if the person fails to appear at the time and place specified by the court.
Section 75 provides for forfeiture of Dharaut where the person who furnished it fails to appear.
Where immovable property has been furnished, the Code provides for recovery/sale mechanisms relating to the amount to be paid, with the remaining property dealt with according to the statutory provision.
Therefore:
Getting bail does not mean the criminal case is finished.
The accused must continue complying with court orders and appearance dates.
Yes, subject to the Code.
Section 76 provides for release or return of Dharaut/Jamanat in specified circumstances.
Where the accused is subsequently detained in a case filed in court, the security furnished before detention is to be released according to the statutory provision.
Where the accused is ultimately acquitted, the Dharaut or Jamanat taken during the proceedings is generally to be returned or released, except where otherwise provided by law.
Therefore, the release of security is connected with the procedural outcome of the case.
Section 77 deals with prolonged detention.
Where a case cannot be adjudicated within one year from the first date fixed for examination of evidence and an accused remains detained, the case may proceed by taking Dharaut or Jamanat, subject to the statutory exceptions.
However, this provision does not apply to an accused detained under Section 67 for an offence punishable by:
The statute also provides a special rule concerning recidivists.
Therefore, Section 77 cannot simply be applied to every long-running criminal case.
Section 78 establishes an important limitation.
An accused cannot be held in detention for longer than the maximum period of imprisonment that could be imposed if the charge were proved, subject to the Code's framework.
This provision should be considered where an accused has spent a substantial period in detention.
A lawyer should compare:
period already detained
with
maximum imprisonment applicable to the charge.
Section 79 requires a memorandum of order when the court:
The order is accompanied by reasons.
This written order is important for understanding:
Section 80 concerns the warrant for detention.
When a person is detained under the Act, the competent authority is required to detain the person pursuant to the court's detention order and provide a detention warrant containing the reason and legal ground for detention in the prescribed form.
Therefore, detention is not merely an informal administrative act.
It must have a legal basis and corresponding documentation.
A typical Thunchek process in Nepal can be understood through the following stages.
The accused appears before the competent court according to the applicable procedure.
The court examines the offence alleged against the accused.
The court determines whether the statutory grounds for detention are present.
If Section 67 does not apply, the court may consider Dharaut, Jamanat or bank guarantee.
Where neither Section 67 nor Section 68 applies, the accused may be kept on Tarikh.
If security is required, Section 72 provides the statutory factors for fixing a reasonable amount.
The accused or appropriate guarantor furnishes the required Dharaut, Jamanat or bank guarantee.
The applicable prescribed document is completed.
Once the court's requirements are fulfilled, the accused may be released according to the order.
The accused must appear whenever required.
The Code refers to the evidence available at the relevant stage.
Therefore, the defence should examine the prosecution's materials and identify weaknesses such as:
The purpose is not to conduct the entire trial at the Thunchek stage.
Instead, the defence should demonstrate why the statutory basis for detention is absent or why release on appropriate security is legally justified.
The Thunchek hearing can have a major practical impact on an accused.
A detention order may mean:
A properly structured bail application can therefore be important.
The defence should focus on the statutory test, rather than simply making an emotional request for release.
The punishment attached to the actual offence can determine the Section 67 analysis.
The Code creates different categories under Sections 67, 68 and 69.
The court must consider specified factors when fixing security.
The security must satisfy the court's order.
Previous conviction is expressly relevant under Section 72 and Section 67 in specified circumstances.
Failure to appear can have consequences for Dharaut/Jamanat.
Section 71 expressly allows reconsideration during proceedings.
Adalat Lawyers focuses on litigation and can assist clients facing criminal proceedings involving Thunchek, detention, bail, Dharaut, Jamanat and bank guarantee.
A Thunchek strategy should begin by reviewing:
What exact criminal offence has been alleged?
What sentence can legally be imposed?
Does the case fall within a statutory category for detention?
What evidence is presently available?
What facts support a reasonable security amount?
Should the defence seek:
If the order is unreasonable or legally defective, should a petition be considered under Section 73?
These questions should be answered from the actual case file rather than from general assumptions.
Thunchek (थुनछेक) is the criminal court's determination of whether an accused should remain in detention or be released on Dharaut, Jamanat, bank guarantee or Tarikh during the criminal proceedings. Chapter-7 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 provides the principal statutory framework.
Thunchek is the broader court process of deciding the accused's status during trial. Bail, Dharaut and Jamanat are possible forms of release/security within that framework. The court may instead order detention or keep the accused on Tarikh where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
Section 67 applies to specified circumstances, including offences punishable by life imprisonment and certain Schedule-1 or Schedule-2 offences punishable by more than three years, where the statutory evidentiary threshold is met. It also covers specified circumstances such as guilty plea, flight risk in the circumstances stated, failure to appear pursuant to warrant, and recent previous conviction.
Section 67 provides the principal detention framework, but Section 67(3) creates a special possibility for certain children, infirm persons, women with pregnancy of more than seven months and persons above seventy-five, subject to the statutory limitation concerning offences punishable by more than ten years.
Except in cases covered by Section 67, where there is a reasonable ground for proving the charge, the court may take Dharaut, Jamanat or bank guarantee and keep the accused on Tarikh. If the required security is not furnished, Section 68(2) provides for detention.
Under Section 72, the court must fix the amount reasonably after considering factors including the nature and gravity of the offence, financial and family condition, age, physical condition, previous conviction, several offences, sentence and compensation, consequences of the offence and whether the accused pleaded guilty.
Yes. Section 70 allows the court to demand additional Dharaut, Jamanat or bank guarantee if the original security later appears insufficient. Failure to furnish the additional security may result in detention.
Yes. Under Section 73, a person dissatisfied with an order concerning detention, Dharaut, Jamanat, guarantee or bank guarantee may petition the appeal-hearing court up to one level, subject to the statutory provisions and special rule concerning certain serious offences.
Failure to appear can result in forfeiture or recovery of the security according to the relevant provisions. Section 74 also requires the prescribed deed to contain the relevant appearance obligation, while Section 75 deals with forfeiture of Dharaut.
Yes, depending on the circumstances. Section 71 allows the court to reconsider detention or security during proceedings. Section 77 also provides a specific mechanism concerning prolonged detention where a case has not been adjudicated within the statutory period, subject to important exceptions.
Thunchek in Nepal is not simply a question of “bail or no bail.” Under Chapter-7 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, 2074, the court has a statutory framework for deciding whether an accused should be:
Thuna (detention), Dharaut, Jamanat, Bank Guarantee or Tarikh.
The most important provisions are:
The Nepal Law Commission's published text confirms the Chapter-7 framework, including the statutory provisions concerning detention, Dharaut, Jamanat, bank guarantee, Tarikh, additional security and prolonged detention.
The most important practical point is that the outcome of Thunchek depends on the exact offence, punishment, evidence and circumstances of the accused. There is no universal rule that every accused must be detained, and there is no universal rule that every accused is entitled to release on payment of a fixed bail amount.
For a person facing a criminal case, the appropriate approach is to examine Section 67 first, then determine whether Section 68 or Section 69 applies, and, where security is required, address the Section 72 factors carefully.
For assistance with Thunchek, Thuna, Dharaut, Jamanat, bail, bank guarantee, criminal detention and criminal litigation in Nepal, Adalat Lawyers can assess the specific case, evidence, charge and applicable procedural remedies.
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
