This is an UNFORTUNATE development. One of the greatest strengths of Anglo-American jurisprudence (which you guys in the UK and the US enjoy to a great degree, and we don't in Nepal) is this: People are NOT guilty of crimes they are accused of UNTIL proven so in a court of law. Ojha's crimes, no matter how despicable, have NOT yet been proven to be true in and by a court of law in Nepal. As such, Ojha is NOT yet a criminal, but a singer facing serious allegations. I would think that he could well be released on bail, pending a trial. That is why, again, no matter how vehemently one wants to punish him for his alleged "work", he deserves to be treated as an inncocent Nepali UNTIL proven guilty. Anything less will only signal that the difference between how Maoists mete out their justice and how the rest of Nepali society metes out its justice is pretty much of the same: without any valid legal proceedings. Either approach further makes a mockery of our cherished notions of "democracy" Democracy, after all, is all about the legal validation of every citizen. The rest, as trhey say, is nothing but commentary. oohi ashu