Sheena Bora murder case: Bombay High Court grants bail to Peter Mukerjea

Peter Mukerjea

Peter Mukerjea   | Photo Credit: Vijay Bate

Prima facie there is no evidence: judge

The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted bail to former television executive Peter Mukerjea, an accused in the Sheena Bora murder case, but stayed its execution for six weeks to give the CBI time to appeal.

A Bench of Justice Nitin Sambre said there was prima facie no evidence against Mukerjea. The court took note of the fact that the statement of Mukerjea’s driver Shyamvar Rai, an accused-turned-approver, was recorded multiple times, indicating that he was tutored. 

It said Mukerjea’s objection to his son Rahul’s relationship with his wife’s daughter Sheena did not suggest a criminal intention. He was not in the country at the time of the murder. Justice Sambre granted him bail on a surety of ₹2 lakh and asked him not to contact his children Rahul Mukerjea and Vidhi Mukerjea and other witnesses.

He was lodged at Arthur Road Jail since November 19, 2015, and was rushed to J.J. Hospital on March 16, 2019, after he complained of chest pain. An ECG carried out in the jail suggested some abnormality and he was shifted to the Hospital where he was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

He had suffered a mild heart attack. There were four blocks in three main arteries, and the report had suggested that he should undergo either a bypass surgery or an angioplasty at the earliest.

He has been charged under Sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 120b (punishment of criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender), 302 (punishment for murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

On November 24, 2016, the same judge rejected Mukerjea’s bail petition and said, “There is enough material in the investigation to prima facie infer that the applicant [Mukerjea] was not in support of Rahul’s relationship with Sheena.” 

As for Rai, the same Bench had then recorded, “At the outset, it is required to note that the statement of co-accused Shyamvar points the finger at the applicant as regards his involvement. The statement of adopted daughter Vidhi also speaks of disapproval of the relationship between Sheena and Rahul by the applicant. The statements of other witnesses also point the finger at the involvement of the applicant to the crime in question.” 

Why you should pay for quality journalism - Click to know more

Recommended for you
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Feb 28, 2020 8:57:07 AM |

Next Story