After Indrani’s plea, court directs CBI to produce Sheena Bora’s laptop in trail

Crucially, while the description notes that the laptop was “sealed in the presence of above witnesses”, suggesting compliance with seizure procedure under criminal law, the court found that no corresponding documentation had been placed on record

MUMBAI: In a significant development in the 2012 Sheena Bora murder case, a special court on Monday allowed an application by Indrani Mukerjea, the victim’s mother and prime accused, and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to produce Sheena Bora’s personal laptop, earlier placed in the list of “unrelied” articles, along with its seizure panchanama, forensic examination report and chain-of-custody documents, holding that the absence of these materials affects the fairness of the trial.

After Indrani’s plea, court directs CBI to produce Sheena Bora’s laptop in trail

Passing the order, special judge J P Darekar relied on the prosecution’s own record, noting that the laptop is specifically described in the list of un-relied articles as having been seized, identified and sealed.

The court recorded that the device was “identified by Rahul Mukerjea”, son of Indrani’s then husband Peter Mukerjea, also an accused, and that “he had also used the said laptop”. This, the court indicated, lends the device independent evidentiary value, given Rahul’s position as a key witness who was engaged to Sheena at the time of her disappearance.

Crucially, while the description notes that the laptop was “sealed in the presence of above witnesses”, suggesting compliance with seizure procedure under criminal law, the court found that no corresponding documentation had been placed on record.

It flagged that “there is no mention of search and seizure panchanama… [or] forensic examination report”, and also noted the absence of any material showing how the device was transferred between the Khar police and the CBI. This gap, the court observed, persists despite the prosecution’s own assertion that the laptop had been sent for forensic analysis.

Rejecting the CBI’s contention that the article was not relied upon and that the application was intended to delay the trial, the court held that the defence had demonstrated a clear necessity. It recorded that the agency had “willfully chose not to rely upon such important articles nor provided records”, and warned that without these documents, “further cross-examination… cannot be conducted effectively”, particularly at a stage when the first investigating officer is in the witness box.

Allowing the plea, the court directed the CBI to produce the laptop and ordered both the agency and the Khar police to place on record the seizure panchanama, names of panch witnesses, forensic examination report, correspondence with forensic laboratories, and any documents evidencing the handing over or custody of the device.

The order comes in the midst of a long-running trial arising from the alleged 2012 murder, which surfaced three years later following the arrest of driver Shyamvar Rai in 2015, who subsequently turned approver.

On April 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a plea by Indrani Mukerjea for permission to travel abroad.

The prosecution case is that Sheena was strangled in a car and her body burnt and disposed of in Raigad, with Indrani, her former husband Sanjeev Khanna and others accused of conspiracy and murder. Rahul Mukerjea, who was Sheena’s partner, has been a central witness in the case, particularly on the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and the communications that followed.