'She Will Threaten Witnesses, Tamper With Evidence And Abscond If Bail Granted' : CBI To Supreme Court In Bail Plea Filed By INX Media Co-founder Indrani Mukerjea

By its order dated 18.02.2022, the Supreme Court had issued notice in the bail plea. On Friday, as the matter came up for hearing, Justices L.Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavia was urged by Additional Solicitor General, Mr S.V Raju to provide some time to file the counter affidavit in the matter. The Bench informed the Counsel that a counter has already been filed. Mr. Raju stated that he had not received the same -

"I have not received the counter. There is some internal problem at our end."

The Counsel for the petition also sought time to file rejoinder. In view of the same, the Bench asked the registry to list the matter after two weeks.

The Central Investigation Agency had filed its counter affidavit opposing the bail application filed by Indrani Mukerjea (petitioner). Preliminarily, it noted that the petitioner had not shown any new grounds entitling her to bail, especially when there was sufficient evidence to establish the serious allegations levelled against her.

Delay in completion of trial is not enough to entitle Indrani to secure bail

It was pointed out that out of the 68 prosecution witnesses examined 16 witnesses have been dropped and it was submitted that almost half of the remaining witnesses would be dropped by the end of the trial. In such a backdrop, the petitioner's concern that the trial will take a long time to conclude does not hold merit. Citing Chenna Boyna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra And Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 242, it was argued that delay in completion of trial is not enough to grant bail. Moreover, in Rajesh Rajan Yadav v. CBI (2007) 1 SCC 70 it was held by the Apex Court that the length of the period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to bail.

Gruesome Act does not deserve leniency

The petitioner had planned and killed her daughter and attempted to murder her son - such a gruesome act, the CBI contended, did not deserve leniency in the consideration of the bail application by the Apex Court. The counter noted that as per Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan v. State of UP And Ors, AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 440, the bail application is to be considered in the light of the gravity of the offence for which the accused has been charged. Reliance was placed on State v. Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 SC 215, wherein the Apex Court had held that the seriousness of the offence was to be considered while dealing with bail application in non-bailable cases.

Indrani will threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence and abscond if bail granted

The investigation has been concluded, but the Closure Report is yet to be filed. If the petitioner is released at this point in time, the CBI was apprehensive that she, being an influential person would intimidate procession witnesses; tamper with the evidence and will abscond.

Indrani is regularly provided with medical care

It was asserted that the Prison Authorities of the Byculla Women's Prison have round the clock medical facilities to attend to emergencies. It offers proper treatment and due attention to the petitioner. The Counter emphasised that in the medical document dated 20.02.2021 filed by the petitioner herself, the Officer of Mumbai District Woman Prison had reported that she was provided regular medical treatment for the condition she was diagnosed with in June and September, 2018. On previous occasions as well, the jail authorities have acted promptly and admitted her to the hospital for treatment. The report dated 30.06.2021 issued by the Medical Officer, Mumbai, District Woman Prison-2 stated that her vital parameters were within limits after recovering from COVID and she was taking medications as per the advice of doctors. Relying on the judgment in Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, the Court was beseeched not to grant bail on the medical grounds.

Bail granted to co-accused is not relevant

The Counter affidavit clarified that just because Peter Mukerjea was enlarged on bail, it would not entitle the petitioner to secure bail. The acts of commission of crime were different. Moreover, the petitioner is the prime accused.

Allegation of Sheena Bora being alive is a figment of imagination of Indrani

The CBI counter affidavit stated that the allegations that Sheena Bora was alive after April 2012 based on SMS exchange between Sheena Bora and Rahul Mukerjea (Peter's son) is a figment of imagination of the petitioner. It stated -

"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, I 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

Shyamwar Rai, an eyewitness to the murder had provided detailed account of the incident in his testimony. Therefore, the fact that in another case, he denied confessing to the CBI does not have a bearing on the outcome of the present matter. The Counter affidavit pointed out that the CDR of the phone number used by him showed that he was present at the relevant place on the relevant date and time.

There is sufficient evidence to prove guilt of the accused

It was asserted that the Investigating Agency had sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The Counter emphasised that the Criminal Procedure Code confers discretionary power to grant bail and therefore it should be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the public at large.

Background

In April 2012, a case was filed with the Mumbai Police alleging kidnapping and murder of Sheena Bora. Indrani's driver, who was arrested in another case confessed to have murdered Bora and informed the Mumbai Police that her mother, Indrani was also involved. The CBI took up the investigation in 2015. Indira and her husband, Mr. Peter Mukerjea was arrested. Peter was granted bail by a Special Court in March 2020.

Ms. Mukerjea, who is presently lodged in Byculla jail, Mumbai wrote a letter to CBI in December, 2021 stating that she would move the Special Court to record the statement of an inmate who had claimed to have met Bora in Kashmir. A Special Court accepted Ms. Mukerjea's application, apprising it that Bora was alive and in Kashmir. It asked the CBI to file a reply in the matter.

In 2016, Ms. Mukerjea's first bail plea on medical grounds was rejected by the Special Court. Her second plea was rejected in September, 2017, wherein the Special Court had observed that she would be safer inside the prison. In Nov, 2018, her third plea was rejected by the Special Court stating that if released she could tamper with evidence and witnesses. Again on 06.08.2020, her bail was rejected on the ground that she being an influential person could influence witnesses. On 16.11.2021, the Bombay High Court rejected her bail plea, inter alia, on the ground that there were evidence to establish her involvement in the murder. Medical grounds and delay in completion of trial were considered by the High Court to be inadequate to grant bail in the present case.

[Case Title: Indrani Mukerjea v CBI]

Click Here To Read/Download Order