Nilesh back in jail

Appearing on behalf of the CBI, the public prosecutor contended that Daxa8217;s bail plea should not be granted as she would be required to gather clues on basis of the statements of Nilesh Jadeja recorded by the CBI. Jadeja had earlier told the CBI that he had been paid Rs 15,000 by Daxa Shukla to kidnap Ruchi so that one of her ears could be sacrificed in a religious ceremony.

However, R R Shukla and Rajesh Modi, appearing on behalf of Daxa Shukla and Kunal Shukla, contended that the affidavit filed by the CBI officers was false and the clause that Daxa had confessed before the CBI baseless as she herself had refuted such claims. Only in the case of a dying declaration, they said, would the statements made earlier hold true.

Shukla and Modi also contended that the CBI, even after nearly 15 days of investigation, was yet to name Daxa Shukla or even Kunal Shukla in the FIR. In fact, they said, no one had been named in the FIR as the accused. They also submitted that the CBI had not said in court that Daxa would abscond if released on bail. They said on basis of the right to equality the court should release Daxa Shukla on bail.

The two contended that, according to Article 21 of the Constitution, the arrest before remand and the actual punishment should be for a short duration and the accused should not be kept in judicial custody for too long. They further contended that Daxa had a mother who was suffering from paralysis and she Daxa was the only member of the family able to look after her.

Kunal, they said, was a young college boy who, while out on bail, had not tampered with the records. Living with hardened criminals, they said, could have an adverse and long-lasting effect on him. The two contended that Daxa had been named in the case as the police wanted to tarnish her reputation.