Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea by former media executive Indrani Mukerjea, accused of killing her daughter Sheena Bora, challenging the Bombay High Court’s ruling denying her permission to travel to Europe.
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar issued a notice to the central agency and sought its response to Mukerjea’s appeal.
Special CBI Court Allows Mukerjea To Travel Once To Spain & The UK
On July 19, a special CBI court allowed Mukerjea to travel once to Spain and the UK for ten days between intermittent periods over the next three months. Mukerjea had sought permission to travel abroad claiming that she needed to change certain bank-related documents and other ancillary work after her divorce with Peter Mukerjea.
High Court Quashes The Special Court’s Order
The CBI challenged this before the high court. The high court, on September 27, quashed the special court’s order.
The high court had said that if Indrani Mukerjea wants to carry out the work from India then the statutory authority concerned shall help her. The high court also clarified that it has not made any remark on the merits of the case but has only noted that the special court order was not reasonable, and hence unsustainable.
Indrani Mukerjea Approaches The SC
Hence, Mukherjea approached the SC through Advocate Sana Raees Khan. Mukerjea, who’s a British citizen, stated in her plea that she sought permission to visit Spain and her home country to “make necessary changes and amendments and take care of pending work which cannot be transacted without her personal presence”. She argued the activation of a digital certificate was a must for all relevant work and administration in Spain and her physical presence was mandatory.
She also highlighted her spotless record of complying with the bail conditions since her release in May 2022. Despite having her passport in her possession for two years, Mukerjea claimed that she voluntarily returned it to the court after completing her legal obligations. Moreover, she has attended every trial hearing. Also, only 97 out of 237 witnesses have been examined so far.
Her plea contended that the restriction imposed by the high court undermines her fundamental right to travel.