The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday accused dentist Rajesh Talwar of forging documents and concealing facts before the Supreme Court (SC) to get relief.
In an affidavit before the SC, CBI superintendent Neelabh Kishore alleged that Rajesh, in his appeal, took a false plea that the trial court had released him on bail in July 2008.
Seeking dismissal of his appeal, challenging quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the dentist couple in the 2008 double murder case of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj, the CBI said Rajesh was released after the agency did not seek extension of their judicial custody.
The CBI alleged the bail application annexed along with the appeal was forged as no such document existed. Contrary to the dentist’s claim that he had moved a bail application under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the CBI said that the trial court had ordered Rajesh’s release after the agency filed an application under Section 169 of CrPc. The agency had then told the special court that there wasn’t sufficient evidence against him at that stage.
Interestingly, the aspect of bail is not mentioned in Nupur Talwar’s separate appeal, challenging the same criminal proceedings against the Talwars. Pointing to this discrepancy, the CBI said Nupur, to the contrary, stated that her husband was set free after CBI did not seek his further remand.
Besides, the CBI has alleged that the couple misled the SC while getting relief on March 19, 2011, when the apex court stayed the proceedings before the trial court.
According to the agency the trial court had on March 3 issued bailable warrants that were executed against the couple on March 10. The Talwars did not disclose this fact before the SC, the CBI claimed.
Holding that there is sufficient material to proceed against the Talwars, the CBI said: “It is a settled law that at the stage of taking cognisance, sufficiency of evidence for conviction is not to be considered at that stage… It is further submitted that it is settled law that even at the stage of framing of charge, which is subsequent to the summoning of accused, truth, veracity and effect of the material is not to be judged.”
It said the petitioner was accorded an opportunity to present his case by filing a protest petition, though it wasn’t required under the law. Talwar had on March 19 moved the SC, challenging the Allahabad high court order that refused to set aside a special Ghaziabad CBI court direction, summoning the dentist couple in the murder case.
On an urgent mentioning, the SC had given relief to the Talwars and stayed further proceedings before the trial court. The HC had dismissed their plea, seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by the lower court which not only refused the closure report of the CBI but also summoned them as accused in the case.