The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a fresh petition filed by Indrani Mukerjea, the primary accused in the Sheena Bora murder case, seeking permission to travel overseas. A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh emphasized that Mukerjea must approach the trial court for such relief, noting that the apex court had already provided her with the liberty to do so in its previous orders.
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether it should directly grant permission for international travel to an accused whose trial is at an advanced stage, bypassing the lower court where proceedings are pending. The Court concluded that such applications must be adjudicated by the trial court first. Consequently, the Court granted Mukerjea liberty to file a fresh application before the trial court, directing that it be disposed of within four weeks due to the cited urgency.
Indrani Mukerjea, a former media executive, was arrested in August 2015 following the discovery of the murder of her daughter, Sheena Bora. According to the prosecution, Bora was strangled in a car in Mumbai in April 2012 by Mukerjea, her former husband Sanjeev Khanna, and driver Shyamvar Rai. Her remains were subsequently burnt in a forest in Raigad district. The case, which is being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), also saw the arrest of Mukerjea’s ex-husband, Peter Mukerjea, for alleged conspiracy.
Indrani Mukerjea was granted bail by the Supreme Court in May 2022 after spending over six years in custody. She has consistently denied the allegations.
The travel restriction has been a point of contention for over a year. On July 19, 2024, a special court had allowed Mukerjea to visit Spain and the United Kingdom for 10 days. However, the CBI challenged this before the Bombay High Court, which set aside the order on September 27, 2024.
Earlier, on February 12, 2023, the Supreme Court had dismissed a similar plea, observing that there was “no guarantee” she would return to India. At that time, the Court had directed the trial court to expedite the hearing and conclude the proceedings within a year.
During the hearing on Friday, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Mukerjea, argued that while the top court had not decided her plea on merits last year, there was now a renewed sense of urgency regarding her need to travel.
The bench, however, clarified the scope of its previous intervention. The judges noted that the order passed last year was intended to enable the petitioner to move the trial court, rather than creating a path for direct relief from the Supreme Court. The bench observed that since the trial is at an advanced stage, the trial court remains the appropriate forum to evaluate the risks and merits of such a request.
Refusing to entertain the plea directly, the Supreme Court granted Mukerjea the liberty to move the trial court. The Court’s order stated:
“In view of the above, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the trial court, which, if filed, shall be decided in accordance with our order. Considering the urgency, the application may be disposed of within four weeks.”
The Court reiterated that the trial court must conduct proceedings and decide on the travel application while keeping in mind the expedited timeline previously set by the apex court.
