INX Media co-founder and socialite Indrani Mukerjea, the principal accused in the Sheena Bora murder case, has filed an affidavit in support of her bail application.
The Supreme Court had issued notice on the bail request by order dated 18.02.2022. When the case came up for hearing on Friday, Additional Solicitor General Mr S.V Raju appealed Justices L.Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavia to give them some time to file the counter affidavit in the case. A response has already been filed, the Bench informed the Counsel. Mr. Raju said that he had not received it
"I have not received the counter. There is some internal problem at our end."
The petition's counsel also requested more time to prepare a rejoinder. In view of the same, the Bench asked the registry to list the matter after \stwo weeks.
The Central Investigation Agency had filed a counter-affidavit contesting Indrani Mukerjea's bail application (petitioner).
It was noted at the outset that the petitioner had not demonstrated any new reasons for bail, especially because there was sufficient evidence to prove the serious allegations levelled against her.
Delay in completion of trial is not enough to entitle Indrani to secure bail
It was noted that 16 of the 68 prosecution witnesses questioned had been dismissed, and it was predicted that by the end of the trial, over half of the remaining witnesses would have been dismissed. In light of this, the petitioner's anxiety that the trial will take a long time to finish is unfounded. It was contended, using Chenna Boyna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra And Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 242, that a delay in the completion of the trial is insufficient grounds for granting bail. Furthermore, the Apex Court stated in Rajesh Rajan Yadav v. CBI (2007) 1 SCC 70 that the time of detention alone would not entitle the accused to bail.
Gruesome Act does not deserve leniency
The petitioner had planned and executed the murder of her daughter and attempted the murder of her son, according to the CBI, and such a heinous deed did not merit leniency in the Apex Court's evaluation of the bail application. According to Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan v. State of UP And Ors, AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 440, the bail application must be examined in light of the seriousness of the crime charged against the accused. The Supreme Court held in State v. Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 SC 215 that the seriousness of the offence should be weighed when dealing with bail applications in non-bailable cases.
Indrani will threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence and abscond if bail granted
Although the inquiry is complete, the Closure Report has yet to be filed. The CBI was concerned that if the petitioner was released at this time, she would frighten procession witnesses, tamper with evidence, and flee.
Indrani is regularly provided with medical care
It was said that the Byculla Women's Prison has round-the-clock medical services to deal with medical emergencies. It provides the petitioner with suitable treatment and attention. The Counter emphasised that the Officer of Mumbai District Woman Prison had indicated in the petitioner's medical certificate dated 20.02.2021 that she had had regular medical treatment for the ailment she was diagnosed with in June and September of 2018. The jail authorities had taken fast action in the past and admitted her to the hospital for treatment. Her vital parameters were within limits after recuperating from COVID, according to a report provided by the Medical Officer, Mumbai, District Woman Prison-2 on June 30, 2021. She was taking meds as prescribed by doctors. The Court was urged not to grant bail on medical grounds, citing the Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan decision.
Bail granted to co-accused is not relevant
The petitioner would not be entitled to bail just because Peter Mukerjea was enlarged on bail, according to the Counter affidavit. Crimes were committed in a variety of ways. Furthermore, the petitioner is the main defendant.
Allegation of Sheena Bora being alive is a figment of imagination of Indrani
The assertions that Sheena Bora was alive after April 2012, based on SMS exchanges between Sheena Bora and Rahul Mukerjea (Peter's son), are a fiction of the petitioner's imagination, according to the CBI reply affidavit. It declared that
"Rahul Mukerjea in his statement U/s 161 Crpc dated 27.12.2015 has stated that "with regard to variation in date and time in my mobile handset during the period 2012 that was handed over by me to Khar Police Station, Mumbai after referring the same, / state that due to removal of phone battery or otherwise, it has occurred and I did not notice the same. The date and time as stated by me in my earlier statement are true as per my knowledge."
The approver turning hostile in another case has no adverse effect on the present case
In his testimony, Shyamwar Rai, an eyewitness to the murder, gave a comprehensive account of the incident. As a result, the fact that he denied confessing to the CBI in another instance has no influence on the outcome of this case. The CDR of the phone number he used, according to the counter affidavit, proved that he was present at the relevant location on the relevant date and time.
There is sufficient evidence to prove guilt of the accused
It was claimed that the Investigating Agency had enough evidence to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Counter emphasised that while the Criminal Procedure Code grants discretionary power to issue bail, it should be utilised with utmost care and caution, balancing an individual's right to liberty against the public's interest.
Background of the matter
Sheena Bora was kidnapped and murdered, according to a case filed with the Mumbai Police Department in April 2012. Indrani's driver, who had been arrested in another case, admitted to killing Bora and told Mumbai cops that her mother, Indrani, was also implicated. In 2015, the CBI took up the probe. Mr. Peter Mukerjea, Indira's husband, was detained. In March 2020, a Special Court granted Peter bail.
Ms. Mukerjea, who is currently detained in Mumbai's Byculla jail, wrote to the CBI in December 2021, claiming that she would petition the Special Court to record the account of a detainee who claimed to have met Bora in Kashmir. Ms. Mukerjea's case was accepted by a Special Court, which was informed that Bora was alive and well in Kashmir. It requested a response from the CBI in the case.
Ms. Mukerjea's first bail application, based on medical concerns, was denied by the Special Court in 2016. In September 2017, her second request was dismissed by the Special Court, which stated that she would be safer inside the prison. The Special Court denied her third appeal in November 2018, claiming that if she was released, she would interfere with evidence and witnesses. Her bail was again denied on August 6, 2020, on the grounds that she could influence witnesses because she is a powerful person. The Bombay High Court denied her bail application on 16.11.2021, citing evidence proving her involvement in the crime, among other reasons. The High Court ruled that medical concerns and a delay in the completion of the trial were insufficient grounds for granting bail in this case.
