Aarushi case: Allahabad HC rejects plea of Talwar couple

Allahabad: In a further setback to the dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, the Allahabad High Court on Friday rejected their petitions against initiation of criminal proceedings against them in the case of murder of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj less than three years ago.
"There is no provision for prohibiting a magistrate from summoning a person if prima facie it appears that there is sufficient evidence against the person," Justice Balakrishna Narayana said in his order on a petition filed by Nupur Talwar against a Special CBI court's order in Ghaziabad.
The judge dismissed the criminal revision petition of Nupur against the CBI court proceedings saying the petition has "failed to provide any valid reason warranting the court's intervention at this stage".
Besides, Justice Narayana observed that the CBI court order of Feb 9 was passed after a "perusal of the case diary and appears to be in order".
On February 9 the Ghaziabad court had issued bailable warrants against the couple for their failure to appear before the court and to initiate proceedings against them after it had named them accused while rejecting the closure report of the CBI. The closure report was made the chargesheet.
The court asked Nupur, who had submitted that she had been summoned despite never having been called for interrogation or having been named as an accused in the CBI's clousre report, to appear before the trial court within two weeks.
She could move a bail application there itself "which may be decided on the same day, if possible," the court observed.
Another petition filed by Rajesh Talwar challenging bailable warrants issued by the Ghaziabad court on February 28 was dismissed by Justice Ravindra Singh.
Rejecting Rajesh's contention that he was out on a regular bail and hence the lower court should not not issued bailable warrants against him without first cancelling the bail, Justice Singh remarked that Rajesh was released from jail in July, 2008 under Section 169 of the Cr. P.C. which was an interim arrangement".