Free Press Journal

Sheen Bora Murder case: Peter, Indrani counsels rapped for case delay


Mumbai: The special Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) court on Tuesday directed the agency to file a reply in response to an application moved by Peter Mukherjea, accused in the Sheena Bora case. He has sought the statements of accused-turned-approver Shyamvar Rai, which were initially recorded by the Khar Police.

Peter moved the application through his counsel Mihir Gheewala and also sought a certified copy of the transcripts of conversation between Rahul and Peter.

Subsequently, Indrani also moved an application seeking the statements of all the witnesses recorded by the Khar Police.

Also Read: Sheena Bora murder case: Indrani, Peter’s worst kept secrets revealed

After hearing the submissions of both the counsels, special Judge HS Mahajan rapped them for filing applications. The special Judge said, “It has been more than a year now and still the charges are not framed. You (counsels of Indrani and Peter) are coming up with some or the other application every time which is delaying the process.”

However, the special Judge directed CBI to file a reply in response to these applications by December 5.

Meanwhile, the special court also extended the judicial custody of Peter, Indrani and her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna till December 9. The court also clarified that it would be finalising a date for commencing the arguments of framing of charges on December 9 only.

Also Read: Bombay HC grants Peter Mukherjea access to secret witness’ statement

Ravina’s testimony a joke: Peter’s lawyer

As the statements of Ravina Raj Kohli, the ex-colleague of Peter Mukherjea have revealed shocking details about his lifestyle and business dealings, Peter’s counsel Mihir Gheewala has termed the testimony as a ‘joke’.

While speaking to Free Press Journal, Gheewala said, “These statements are just an attempt of the prosecution to malign my clients image and aimed at his character assassination. This is the second time the agency has brought in such statements which are nothing to do with the case.” “In terms of law, certain provisions in the Evidence Act specifically state that an individual’s character has nothing to do with his offence. These statements are not admissible and will not make any impact on the case,” Gheewala added.