NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: While granting Indrani Mukerjea bail in the Sheena Bora murder case, the Supreme Court bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and A S Bopanna took into account that her exhusband and co-accused Peter Mukerjea had been granted bail. The bench said she should be released with the same terms and conditions imposed on Peter by the Bombay high court. Peter was given bail on a surety of Rs 2 lakh.
In Delhi, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Khan, appearing for Indrani, pleaded she be granted bail as she had been in custody since August 2015 and trial was not going to be concluded soon. Rohatgi said the presiding judge of the trial court had gone on leave for 11 months and nothing had happened from June 7last year to May 4 this year. He further contended that she would be entitled to the benefit of special dispensation under Section 437 of the CrPC (bail provision for women and the infirm, among others).
“There are 237 witnesses in the case but only 68 have been examined. She has been in custody for six and a half years and is facing medical problems. Her husband was arrested just a few days after her but has been granted bail,” said Rohatgi. Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for the CBI, opposed the plea. Countering Rohatgi’s arguments that it would take along time for the trial court to conclude the proceedings as around 169 witnesses are yet to be examined, he said he had received instruction from the agency that 50% of the remaining witnesses would be dropped. The ASG added there is clinching evidence showing her involvement and she may try to influence the witnesses. But the bench was not convinced and the bail order was passed after a brief hearing.
In Delhi, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Khan, appearing for Indrani, pleaded she be granted bail as she had been in custody since August 2015 and trial was not going to be concluded soon. Rohatgi said the presiding judge of the trial court had gone on leave for 11 months and nothing had happened from June 7last year to May 4 this year. He further contended that she would be entitled to the benefit of special dispensation under Section 437 of the CrPC (bail provision for women and the infirm, among others).
“There are 237 witnesses in the case but only 68 have been examined. She has been in custody for six and a half years and is facing medical problems. Her husband was arrested just a few days after her but has been granted bail,” said Rohatgi. Additional solicitor general S V Raju, appearing for the CBI, opposed the plea. Countering Rohatgi’s arguments that it would take along time for the trial court to conclude the proceedings as around 169 witnesses are yet to be examined, he said he had received instruction from the agency that 50% of the remaining witnesses would be dropped. The ASG added there is clinching evidence showing her involvement and she may try to influence the witnesses. But the bench was not convinced and the bail order was passed after a brief hearing.