Mumbai: Indrani Mukerjea’s bail plea opposed for fifth time

MUMBAI: Opposing Indrani Mukerjea’s fifth bail plea in the murder case of her daughter Sheena Bora, the prosecution told the special trial court on Thursday that her role is entirely different from co-accused and ex-husband Peter Mukerjea, who was recently granted bail by the Bombay high court. Among her bail arguments, Indrani had sought parity with Peter.
Refuting this, special public prosecutor Manoj Chaladan cited a paragraph from the high court’s February 6 order.The high court had observed that even if were presumed that Peter had shown disapproval to the “love relationship” between his son Rahul Mukerjea and Sheena, there was material to infer that such disapproval was based on the directions of Indrani. The high court had further observed that the material on record demonstrated that the disappearance of Sheena was even suppressed from Peter, as, after the murder Indrani was operating the victim’s email account and mobile phone.
However, one of the defence advocates in the case pointed out that at the end of the same order, the high court had said, “It is made clear, that the observations made herein are prima facie, and the trial court shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.” The high court had stayed its order by six weeks to enable an appeal by the CBI.
Seeking bail, Indrani had cited the deposition of several witnesses and said that their versions were concocted and riddled with discrepancies. However, Chaladan said that at this stage the court cannot go into the credibility and reliability of witnesses. “It can only look at if there are reasonable grounds or not,” the prosecutor said.
The prosecution also said that witnesses such as Indrani’s former driver and accused-turned-approver, Shyamvar Rai, former assistant Kajal Sharma and son Mekhail Bora had spoken about her role in various aspects of the crime. “The prosecution had got prima facie material to show the active role of the accused and how grave the offence is,” Chaladan said. He also said that there was apprehension that Indrani would abscond as she was a British citizen. Standing in the witness box, Indrani quipped that her passport was with the court.
Concluding his submissions, Chaladan said, “Considering the gravity of the offence, role of the accused, status of accused in society…the accused is not entitled for bail at this stage.”
Indrani will submit her rejoinder to the prosecution’s arguments on February 25.