IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTAR PRADESH AT ALLAHABAD

~~~~~~~
INDEX
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. OF 2012
(Under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
[[District – NOIDA]]

Rajesh Talwar …................................................ Accused/Applicant (In Jail).

VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh…...........……………………………...... Opposite Party.
~~~~~~~

S.N. PARTICULARS. PAGE NO.

1- Index
2- Criminal Bail Application
3- Affidavit.
4- Annexure No. 1. Copy of the FIR lodged by the Rajesh Talwar
5- Annexure No. 2 Copy of the Autopsy Report of deceased Aarushi
Talwar dated 25.05.2008
6- Annexure No. 3: The Copy of the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
7- Annexure No. 4: The Copy of the bail rejection order dated 8.02.2012.

Date: / / 2012
(Vikas Verma)
Advocate
Counsel for the Applicant.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTAR PRADESH AT ALLAHABAD
~~~~~~~~
AFFIDAVIT
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. OF 2012
(Under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
[[District – NOIDA]]

Rajesh Talwar S/o Mukund Kumar Talwar R/o Jal Vayu Vihar sector
25 Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh
…............................Accused/Applicant (In Jail).

VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh
.……………………………......Opposite Party.

Affidavit of Dinesh Talwar s/o

Mukund Kumar Talwar R/o Jal Vayu
Vihar sector 25 Gautam Budh Nagar
Noida, Uttar Pradesh

(Deponent)
I the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath
as under:
1. That the deponent is the Brother of the accused/applicant and also
doing pairvi on behalf of accused/applicant in the above mentioned
bail application and as such the deponent is well acquainted with the
facts of the case deposed to below.
2. That this is the first bail application filed by the applicant before this

Hon’ble Court. The applicant has not filed any other bail application
on the same fact and cause of action before this Hon’ble Court.
3. That the applicant is in jail since 23.05.2008 in connection with case

crime no. 42/ 135/2008 under section 302 IPC Police Station Dasna,
Ghaziabad.
4. That brief fact of the case is that an FIR was lodged by Rajesh s/o

Mukund Talwar against the suspect Hemraj for the murder of Aarushi
Talwar on 16.05.2008 found dead with her throat slit in the bedroom
of their Noida flat. The family suspects that the servant had killed
their daughter while they were sleeping and finding hemraj not in his
room. According to Rajesh when their maid rang the bell the next
morning which usually was opened by hemraj on an ordinary day but
in delay to which was opened by Nupur Talwar on 16.05.2008 and
finding half emptied scotch whisky bottle, they were surprised. When
they went to Aarushi's room finding her dead they were in shock with
the prime suspect to be Hemraj because he is not in his room. The FIR
being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit.
5. That it is relevant to state here that on the next day of the alleged

incident i.e. 17.05.2008 the body of the suspect was found on the
terrace of the apartment and both the bodies of Aarushi Talwar and
hemraj was sent for post mortem to the district hospital where Doctor
has conducted Post Mortem and prepared the Post Mortem report.
The 2008 post-mortem report written by Dr. Sunil Dohre marked
Aarushi's genital area as "nothing abnormal detected” which ruled out
any suspect of sexual assault but which were later proved in report to
be tampered. Hemraj's body had been dragged at least 20 feet on the
terrace after his death, as evident by a blood trail and abrasion
contusion on his elbows were shown and the cause of death was
shown due to Anti Mortem injuries. Copy of the Autopsy Report of
deceased Aarushi Talwar conducted in district hospital by Dr. Sunil
Dohre is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 to this
affidavit.
6. That on the basis of aforesaid FIR the IO and CBI separately started

investigation in the matter and during the course of investigation the

IO has recorded the statements of several witnesses including
informant/ father of the deceased under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C in which he
has stated that at the time of incident he himself, his wife were present
in the house while all this happened and were in a different room. It is
further submitted that they suspect another person, friend of hemraj
and ex-servant to be a suspect for the crime. The Copy of the
 statement of the informant/ father of the deceased u/s 161 Cr.P.C is
being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit.
7. It is further pertinent to bring on record that as the prosecution case

itself that at the time of incident The Talwar’s stated that they slept
through the murders because of the noise produced by the air
conditioners on the hot night. The couple's room had a window AC,
and Aarushi's room had a split AC; both were switched on the night of
15 May. In addition, their bedroom was shut. Aarushi is also believed
to have had a throat infection, due to which she could not have
screamed aloud. In 2013, the defence witness and forensic expert Dr.
RK Sharma stated that a 14-year-old child would have fallen
unconscious immediately due to the first blow from the blunt weapon,
and would not have been able to scream for help. He based this
statement on an analysis of the injuries on Aarushi's body. A sound
expert team later recreated the air conditioners' noise in the house on
CBI's invitation. The team concluded that it was possible that the
Talwars' could not hear the sounds outside their room, and thus, could
have slept through the activities in their house on that night.
8. That it is further respectfully submitted that as per the investigation the

later evidence suggested that the killers did not drag Hemraj's body to
the terrace to hide it: he was killed on the terrace, which nullifies the
theory that Rajesh killed him when he saw him in Aarushi's room.
Rajesh’s driver Sharma testified that the clothes worn by Rajesh on
the morning of 16 May were the same as the ones he saw him wearing
the previous night when he came to return the keys. His description of
Rajesh's clothes matched that of the maid Bharati, who told the court
that Rajesh was wearing a red T-shirt and a half trouser, while Nupur
was wearing a blue maxi gown. There was only Aarushi's blood on
Rajesh's clothes, but no blood of Hemraj could be traced on these
clothes. There was no blood on the clothes that Nupur was seen
wearing in the photographs taken by Aarushi on the night before. This
implied that the parents could not have committed the murders under
sudden provocation, as speculated by the police.
9. The parents denied that they had dressed up the crime scene, pointing

out that if they wanted to do so, they would have not left the Scotch
whisky bottle with bloodstains in the living room for everyone to see.
The family denied that they had shown any haste in cleaning the crime
scene or cremating Aarushi's body. Nupur's mother Lata Chitnis and
their clinic manager Vikas Sethi stated they received permission from
the police to clean the house. The police had told them that they had
already collected all the necessary evidence; include a part of
Aarushi's mattress. It was the police who suggested that Aarushi's
mattress be taken to the terrace for now, given the media clamor
downstairs. Vikas found the terrace locked, and when he could not
find the key, he placed the mattress on the neighboring terrace. The
family also claimed that the police confirmed that they wouldn't need
the body for any further analysis, since the post-mortem had already
been done. Since it was decomposing fast, they cremated it.
10. That from perusal of the aforesaid fact as well as entire material

evidence collected by concerned police no incriminating evidence

have been found against the applicant and all the trial is based on
circumstantial evidences and no direct evidence can be found to
suspect Rajesh Talwar as such the applicant is entitled for bail.
11. That it is also pertinent to bring on record that concern police during

the course of investigation could not collect any finger print of any of
the couple on the whisky bottle or the blood stains of hemraj on any of
the clothes, the concern police further fail to recover any assault or
weapon either from the possession of the applicant or of the pointing
out of applicant. As such the applicant is entitled for Bail.
12. That the applicant is innocent. He has no concern and motive with the

crime and further the applicant has no criminal history. As such the
applicant is entitled for Bail.
13. That the applicant is innocent and he did not commit any crime nor

there is any cogent evidence against the applicant as such he is

entitled for bail.
14. That during the course of investigation the police could not collect

any cogent and direct evidence against the applicant which connect
the applicant in the present crime.
15. That the applicant has applied for bail before trial court which was

rejected by the in charge Session Judge Noida vide its order dated
08.06.2008 The Copy of the bail rejection order dated 08.06.2008 is
being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit.
16. That the applicant is innocent and has not committed any crime and

they has been falsely implicated in the present crime and he is already
in jail since 23.05.2008 without being any direct evidence and such he
is entitled for bail.
17. That the applicant belongs to respectable family and having sufficient

moveable and immovable property as such there is no chance of

absconding.
18. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, stated in the

preceding paragraphs of this affidavit, it is expedient in the interest of

justice that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow
instant application and the accused/applicant be released on bail in
case crime no. 42/ 135/2008 under section 302 IPC Police Station
Dasna, Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial, which act of kindness,
the accused/ applicant shall ever pray.

I, the deponent above named, do hereby swear, affirm

and verify that the contents of paragraph no 1-11 of this
affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and those of 12-18
as per record which I believe to be true and partly as per legal
advice received which I believe to be true that no part of this
affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed in it.

SO HELP ME GOD.
(DEPONENT)

I, Lalit Chaubey, Clerk to Mr. Vikas Verma, Advocate,

High Court of UTTAR PRADESH AT ALLAHABAD do
hereby declare that the person, making this affidavit and
alleging himself to be deponent is known to me from the
perusal of the papers produced before me in this case.
 (CLERK)

Solemnly affirmed before me on this 28th day of February

2012, by the deponent who has been identified by the aforesaid
clerk.

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent who

has fully understood the contents of this affidavit, which have
been read over and explained to him by me.

(OATH COMMISSIONER)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTAR PRADESH AT ALLAHABAD

~~~~~~~
CRIMINAL MISC. BAILS APPLICATION NO……. OF 2008
(Under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
[[District – NOIDA]]

Rajesh Talwar S/o Mukund kumar talwar R/o Jal vayu vihar sector 25
gautam budh nagar noida, uttar pradesh
…............................Accused/Applicant (In Jail).

VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh.……………………………..... Opposite Party.

To,
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the
aforesaid court.
The humble application of the above named applicant most
respectfully showeth as under:-
1. That the full facts and circumstances of the case have been
stated in the accompanying affidavit, which may be treated as part
of this application.

2. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, stated in

the accompanying affidavit, it is expedient in the interest of
justice that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to
allow this application and the accused/applicant be released on
bail in Case Crime no. 42/ 135/2008 under section 302 IPC
Police Station Dasna, Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial,
or pass such other further order which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
which act of kindness, the accused/ applicant shall ever pray.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to release the
accused/applicant on bail in case crime no. 42/ 135/2008 under
section 302 IPC Police Station Dasna, Ghaziabad during
pendency of the trial; or pass such other further order which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case otherwise the applicants will suffer an
irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated by
any other means.

Date 28/02/2012
(Vikas Verma)
Advocate
Counsel for the Applicant.