New Delhi(PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to Indrani Mukerjea, the prime accused in the murder of her daughter Sheena Bora.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao said the trial is not going to be completed anytime soon.
"The allegation made against the petitioner is that she planned the murder in view of the live in relationship of her daughter with Rahul Mukerjea, who was the son of Peter Mukerjea and his earlier wife," the bench said.
"We are not making comments on the merits of the case. Even if 50 per cent witnesses are given by prosecution, the trial would not be over soon. She will be released on bail subject to satisfaction of the trial court. The same conditions imposed on Peter Mukerjea will also be imposed on her," the bench also comprising Justices B R Gavai and A S Bopanna said.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Indrani Mukerjea, who is currently lodged at the Byculla women's prison in Mumbai following her arrest in August 2015.
Rohatgi submitted that the trial is not going to complete anytime soon as a large number of witnesses are yet to be examined. She had been denied bail on multiple occasions by a special CBI court, which is conducting the trial in the murder case.
Bora (24) was allegedly strangled to death in a car by Indrani Mukerjea, her then driver Shyamvar Rai and former husband Sanjeev Khanna in April 2012. The body was burnt in a forest in neighbouring Raigad district.
Bora was Indrani's daughter from her previous relationship.
Former media baron Peter Mukerjea was also arrested for allegedly being part of the conspiracy. He was granted bail by the high court in February 2020.His marriage to Indrani Mukerjea ended during the period of incarceration.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
New Delhi : The Delhi High Court has clarified that Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees free and compulsory education for children up to the age of fourteen, does not confer the right for a child to be educated in a specific school of their choice. Justice C Hari Shankar made this observation while addressing a case involving a 7-year-old girl seeking admission as an economically weaker section (EWS) student in Class II for the academic session 2023-24.
The girl's mother had filed a plea against a school for refusing admission despite her daughter being shortlisted for admission in Class I for the previous academic session through a computerized draw of lots conducted by the Directorate of Education (DoE).
The court noted that the girl had not applied for admission as an EWS student for Class II for the relevant academic year, and without such an application, she had no enforceable right to seek admission in that year to any particular school. The court emphasized that each academic year constitutes a fresh session, and the right to admission as an EWS candidate does not automatically carry forward to the next academic year without the necessary application and draw of lots.
While rejecting the prayer for admission to Class II, the court directed the DoE to ensure that the girl is granted admission as an EWS student in Class II in another school.