The CBI on Tuesday objected to a petition by dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar,parents of teenager Arushi who was found murdered in their Noida home in May 2008,for transfer of trial from Ghaziabad to Delhi.
The agency told a bench headed by Justice B S Chauhan that it suspected hidden motives behind the move by the Talwars,who have been directed by the Supreme Court to stand trial in connection with the murder of Arushi and their domestic help Hemraj.
Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval,who represents CBI,hinted that the Talwars might want to make best use of the provision for anticipatory bail (Section 438 CrPC) available in Delhi,but not so in Uttar Pradesh where the Ghaziabad court is located. In UP,Section 438 was repealed during the Emergency,and the then government had justified the decision by alleging that High Courts interference came in the way of police arresting criminals.
The bench then asked Raval to file a detailed response to the petition and posted the matter to February 27.
Rajesh Talwar had cited the attack on him inside the Ghaziabad court premises and added that most witnesses in the case were based in Delhi.
Their request had come just a day before he and his wife Nupur were scheduled to appear before the Ghaziabad CBI court.
Arushi was found dead on May 16,2008,and the body of Hemraj,their domestic help,was found on the terrace the next day. The CBIs closure report on the investigation was rejected by the Ghaziabad judge,who decided in an order to take cognisance of the case.
The Talwars had approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court dismissed their review petitions against summons and initiation of criminal proceedings by the trial court in Ghaziabad.
The Supreme Court initially stayed the trial proceedings but, on January 6,a bench led by Justice A K Ganguly (now retired) directed the parents to cooperate with the criminal trial.
The bench said the trial court judge had applied his mind and the decision to call the Talwars was not haphazard.
Cognisance has been taken,and not haphazardly,but after considerable time. We feel constrained at this stage not to interfere in the matter. This court should show utmost restraint, the bench observed.