Peter Mukerjea was remanded to the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for four days till November 30 after the central agency told the court that Peter and Indrani Mukerjea had siphoned off nearly 900 crores to bank accounts in Singapore.
CBI officials said, possibility that the accounts in Singapore were in the name of Sheena Bora cannot be ruled out. The agency told the court that they have sought help of the Interpol to identify accounts in Singapore.
Hindustan Times had first reported that one of the key motives of Sheena’s murder was the money parked in her account, which Sheena had refused to part with after Indrani refused to identify Sheena as her daughter.
According to CBI, the accounts were opened with HSBC bank by Indrani with the help of a friend identified as Gayatri for the bank. CBI officials said that Peter had floated nine companies, and there were layers of financial transactions. The nine companies were used to siphon of huge amounts of money, said CBI officials.
CBI officials said that they had conducted forensic psychological tests, gather various income tax records, and needed more time to investigate.
Peter’s advocate Amit Desai said that the chargesheet filed by CBI claimed Rahul and Sheena’s relationship to be the motive behind the murder. Also, Vidhie in her statement had categorically stated of Peter being fond of Rahul, and had no objection with his relationship with Sheena.
In fact, it was Indrani who had an objection with the relationship, and Peter and Indrani used to have fights over these relationships. Even all the statements that CBI had recorded in the chargesheet claim that Peter was not involved in the murder. Sheena was coming close to Peter’s family through Rahul which was motivation for Indrani to kill Sheena, said Desai.
But Anil Singh, additional solicitor general, said that it would be incorrect to say Peter had no objection to the relationship. Peter had told Rahul categorically that Sheena was alive, argued Singh. “When your son was repeatedly making a complaint about Sheena missing, why didn’t you do anything,” questioned Singh.
Desai then said that Peter was a businessman, and to get information on financial transactions Peter’s custody was not needed. ‘If he is not sent to police custody how will it hamper their investigation,” questioned Desai. Would they not be able to find bank account details, asked Desai. CBI has suddenly twisted the case, and motive is being reflected in a totally different manner, argued Desai.
Desai further said that the Indrani’s secretary’s statement reveals of fake accounts, but nothing in her statement suggests Peter’s involvement. Peter himself is a victim of his wife, as he trusted his wife, and he had no reason to doubt Indrani, said Desai.