Peter Mukerjea, husband of Indrani Mukerjea and the co-accused in the Sheena Bora murder case has responded to the claims made by his wife and said that her charges are a figment of her imagination. On November 15, Indrani in a special court hearing had claimed that she had ‘strong reasons to believe’ that Peter ‘may have conspired and abducted’ her daughter back in 2012. The remark in court marked the first time that Indrani blamed Peter for her daughter’s alleged disappearance since the couple’s arrest two years before. Indrani had submitted a two-page handwritten document to the special CBI court seeking call records of Peter’s BPL mobile number. Indrani during the hearing not only blamed Peter, but also accused Shyamvar Pinturam Rai of conspiring and helping abduct her daughter, Sheena Bora, and also manipulating circumstances to frame her as the accused. She further said that Peter may have influenced witnesses, situations and information to turn and twist the case in such a way that led to her arrest on August 25, 2015.
Peter Mukerjea, however, in a written statement claimed that Indrani is playing the victim card. Peter has said that Indrani’s attempt to accuse him is defamatory and malicious and a definite attempt to evade from being pursued as a prime accused in the murder case. In the letter, Peter has clarified that he does not wish to be a part of mud-slinging and wants to keep out of the situation. Peter in the letter has reiterated that Indrani has been trying to dent his name in front of the public and this attack is also another attempt at maligning his reputation.
Indrani had asked CBI court to access Peter’s phone calls from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 and again from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. Meanwhile, Bombay High Court has reserved its order in a plea sought by Peter Mukerjea to access the case diary maintained by Khar police station. Peter demanded access to the diary because he suspected accused turned approver Shyamvar Rai might have given conflicting statements. The court judged that the co-accused was not in the position to make such a demand.