Following the latest update, The Bombay High Court has rejected the bail plea of main accused Indrani Mukherjee in the Sheena Bora murder case. While rejecting the bail plea, The Bombay High Court said that it appears that the prosecution has taken adequate precautions and provided excellent medical facilities to Mukherjee. The court further said that there is no satisfactory reason, due to which bail should be granted on medical grounds.
Indrani Mukerjea was married to former television chief Peter Mukerjea. He had filed a bail application in the Bombay High Court on August 5, 2020, after it was rejected by the CBI Court. His bail plea was heard in November 2021 and Justice NW Sambre rejected it. However, the reasons for the order have yet to be made public.
Argument also given for delay in hearing
Apart from medical grounds, Mukherjee’s lawyer Sana Rais Khan also sought bail for the delay in hearing the case. In the year 2020, only 67 witnesses were called to testify in the court. Khan argued that 195 witnesses are yet to be examined in the case. Justice Sambre said that even if the trial has started, it is likely to take some time and cannot be a ground for release in the present case. Especially considering the nature of the offense alleged to have been committed by Mukherjee, the accused would have to examine a large number of witnesses to prove the crime. Yet the case has been delayed due to the pandemic which lasted for more than a year. The prosecution cannot be blamed for this.
Justice Sambre said there was sufficient material on record to infer the prima facie involvement of Mukherjee in the crime. “ I have been informed that the case is proceeding on a day to day basis. While rejecting the bail on the ground of guilt, Justice Sambre said that this court fully agrees with the reasons given by the trial court.” Evidence as circumstantial evidence supports Mukherjee’s involvement in the crime.
Khan raised questions about the testimony of the government witness Mukherjee’s driver. But Justice Sambre said that even Rai’s testimony and other evidence like CDR records are concerning
. There is no need to focus on these things at this stage. Especially when the trial is at a critical stage. Important witnesses are yet to be examined and the release of the applicant is likely to hamper further prosecution in the case.