:1:
Bail Application No. 599/2020
CNR No. MHCC02-005625-2020
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 599 OF 2020
IN
CBI SPECIAL CASE NO. 117 OF 2015
(Case No. RC 12(S)/2015/CBI/SC-I/NEW DELHI dated 19/11/2015)
SANJEEV KHANNA @ SANJU,
Age 55 years old, Occ.:Business,
Residing permanently at 4-C,
Chapel Road, Hasting, Kolkata-22.
Local Address : Flat No. 4,
Snow-white Building, 106, 14th Road,
Bandra-West, Mumbai-400 050.
(C.R. No. 406/2015 registered with
Khar Police Station, Mumbai.)

Applicant/
Orig. Accd. No. 2
V/s.
THE UNION OF INDIA,
(At the instance of CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION, Special Crime-I,
New Delhi.)

Respondent/
Orig. Complainant
CORAM :
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE,
(C. R. No. 51).

DATED :
24th June, 2020.

:2:
Bail Application No. 599/2020
Mr. Keval Mehta, Ld. Adv. for the applt./orig. accd. no. 2.

Mr. Chaladan, Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respdt.

ORAL ORDER
This
is
the
second
application
placed
by
the
applicant/original accused no. 2 Sanjeev Khanna @ Sanju for grant of
interim bail u/sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against whom
the offence punishable u/sec. 120-B, 364, 302, 307, 201 & 203 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered by the Central Bureau of
Investigation, Special Crime-I, New Delhi.

The case of prosecution in nut-shell :The prosecution case spells out that the criminal conspiracy
was hatched by the accused Indrani Pratim Mukerjea along with her exhusbands Sanjeev Khanna (present applicant/accused) & Pratim
Mukerjea and approver Shyamwar Pinturam Rai for abduction and
murder of her daughter viz. Sheena Bora and to make attempt to
murder of her son viz. Mekhail Bora. In pursuance of that criminal
conspiracy, all the accused persons and the approver abducted Sheena
Bora on 24/04/2012 and murdered her in a car by administering
sedatives and strangulating her and thereafter, they had disposed her
deadbody on 25/04/2012 at Gagode Khind, Khapoli-Pen Road, Raigad
by burning it. The accused Indrani Pratim Mukerjea also attempted to
kill her son Mekhail Bora.
The progress of case :Till now total 67 prosecution witnesses have been
examined.

The medical evidence is nearabout completion.

approver viz. Shyamwar Rai’s evidence is already completed.

Main
The
:3:
Bail Application No. 599/2020
examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the Medical Officer Mr.
S. C. Mohite as well as DNA Expert Mr. S. H. Lade are also completed.
So also, prosecution witness Mekhail Bora’s statement is also recorded.
However, important witness Mr. Rahul Mukherjea as well as other
medical witnesses are yet to be examined.
Heard arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate for the
applicant/original accused no. 2 and Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respondent.
The Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has reiterated the contents of
application. The prosecution has raised objection to grant prayer in the
application. It has filed say on record vide Ex-2. I have perused the
application and documents produced on record on behalf of the
applicant/accused. I have also perused the say filed by the CBI.
The applicant/accused has filed this application for interim
bail pursuant to the directions/guidelines of HonТble Apex Court, the
Government of Maharashtra constituted High Power Committee vide
Government Resolution bearing No. JLM0320/CR58/Prison-2 dated
24/03/2020 and a meeting conducted by the said Committee on
25/03/2020.

The applicant/accused feels that his case fairly falls
within the ambit of guidelines issued by the High Power Committee, as
the cap of releasing only those inmates who are facing charge for
offence punishable only upto 7 years has been removed. There are
specific sections of Indian Penal Code as well as specific acts under
which the prisoner has been charged or convicted, have been exempted
from securing interim bail and/or parole. The applicant/accused has
submitted that though he is a permanent resident of Kolkata, he does
not intend to travel beyond jurisdiction of this Court and will be staying
with his cousin brother Mr. Nikhil Kapur at Bandra, Mumbail.

The
:4:
Bail Application No. 599/2020
applicant/accused has further submitted that he is 55 years old and
suffering from various ailments and that gets him at a greater risk of
getting affected by Covid-19. Over crowding of jails is posing a serious
threat to the safety of inmates, as it is not possible to implement social
and physical distancing norms recommended by the World Health
Organization and Government of India.
26/08/2015
for
more
than
five
years.

He is in custody since
In
the
result,
the
applicant/accused has prayed to allow his application for i n t e r i m
bail.
The prosecution has filed its reply and vehemently opposed
the interim bail application. It has been claimed by the prosecution that
this is the second bail application moved by the applicant/accused. The
earlier bail application of applicant/accused was filed before this Court
on 29/07/2016, which was rejected. The present bail application is not
filed on merit.

It is solely on the basis of Minutes of High Power
Committee Meeting dated 11/05/2020. As per Para 5 of the Minutes
УAll under trial prisoners, who have been booked/charged for such
offences for which maximum punishment is 7 years or less, be
favourably consider for release on interim bail (except those failing the
categories enumerated in it) on personal bond of such amount as may
be determined, for period of 45 days or till such amount as may be
determined, for period of 45 days or till such time that the State Govt.
withdraws the Notification under the Epidemics Act, 1897, which ever
is earlier.Ф It is further mentioned in Para 6 that УWe make it clear that
notwithstanding the decision of this Committee dated 25/03/2020 and
the present decision, it would be open to such prisoners to apply for
interim bail on the same terms as mentioned in the decision of this
Committee dated 25/03/2020 to the concerned Court and orders may
:5:
Bail Application No. 599/2020
be passed after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
examining the medical reports and other relevant records. Even though
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is not exempted from application of
Minutes of High Power Committee, this Court has to consider the entire
facts and circumstances of the case before releasing them on temporary
bail. The minutes are rather recommending nature. CBI has requested
a clarification regarding omission of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
to the HonТble Member Secretary, Maharashtra State Legal Services
Authority, Mumbai on 16/05/2020. The reply is awaited. The present
applicant/accused Sanjeev Khanna has played an active role in
abducting, murdering and disposing the dead-body of Sheena Bora
along with accused Indrani Mukerjea. The statement of Shyamwar Rai,
who has been made as Approver in this case, clearly reveals the overt
acts of applicant/accused in murdering and disposing the dead-body of
deceased. He is instrumental in destroying the evidence also. There is
documentary material to prove that the applicant/accused come from
Kolkata and stayed in Hotel Hilltop, which was booked by accused
Indrani Mukerjea. After commission of crime, both accused went to
Kolkata in the same flight.

The gravity of allegation, role of
applicant/accused in the crime and the clinching evidence came on
record against the applicant/accused, will disentitle him to avail
temporary bail, as per the decision of High Power Committee.
Moreover, the applicant/accused is not having any major health issues,
which will give risk of Covid-19. There are proper medical facilities
available in jail. Therefore, the prosecution has prayed to reject the bail
application filed by the applicant/accused.
Arguments and discussion :For the purpose of clarification, I would like to specify that
:6:
Bail Application No. 599/2020
the present case is known as УSheena Bora Murder CaseФ. Till today 67
prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial can be
completed within short span of time.

However, due to the present
situation, the progress of trial of this case is stagnant.
It is pertinent to refer that the present application is based
on the directions/minutes of High Power Committee Meetings i.e.
HonТble Bombay High Court dated 25/03/2020 & 11/05/2020.
Apparently, Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is not included in the list
of offences mentioned in the decision of High Power Committee.
However, the High Power Committee has observed that Уthe nature of
offenceФ and Уthe severity of the offenceФ are required to be considered
by the Court while granting temporary bail application. The applicant/
accused has claimed that his application fairly falls within the ambit of
guidelines/directions of High Power Committee. Herein it has to be
considered that the offence of murder is a serious offence.

In the
observations of High Power Committee, it has specifically mentioned
that the seriousness of offence has to be considered while granting bail.
Moreover, the HonТble Bombay High Court has observed in the cases of
Mahesh Patil v/s. State of Maharashtra (LD VC Bail Application No.
49/2020) and Kunal Patil v/s. State of Maharashtra (LD VC Bail
Application No. 70/2020) decided on 15/05/2020, wherein the HonТble
Ladyship has observed that while deciding the bail application under
the special circumstances, it would also be necessary to take into
consideration the merits of matter and the gravity of offence. In the
light of said observations, it is material to note that the present
applicant/accusedТs earlier bail application has already been rejected by
this Court. Therefore, merely because Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
has not been mentioned in the directions of High Power Committee,
:7:
Bail Application No. 599/2020
that itself is no ground to grant temporary bail to the present applicant/
accused.
It has been argued and asserted in the application that the
present applicant/accused is suffering from various ailments and
therefore, he is at a greater risk of getting affected by Covid-19 in the
jail premises. Undoubtedly, some of the inmates of Arthur Road Jail
have been affected by Covid-19, but at present the situation is far better.
As per information of Arthur Road Jail Authorities, out of 181 positive
patients of Covid-19, at present 151 patients have been recovered and
only 30 positive patients remained. As per information, none of these
positive patients showing any sign of severity of Covid-19. It is material
to note that there is no any case of death due to Covid-19 in Arthur
Road Jail. This indicates that recovery rate of Covid-19 positive patients
in Arthur Road Jail is better than the rate of recovery of Covid-19
positive patients in other parts of Mumbai. Those infected inmates are
kept in quarantine in a specific area of jail premises.
It is also material to note that all jail inmates including the
present applicant/accused have been tested for Covid-19. The test of
applicant/accused for Covid-19 was negative. I have already mentioned
that the number of infected patients of Covid-19 in Arthur Road Jail has
been reduced drastically. Surprisingly there is no addition in Covid-19
positive patients in jail inmates. Under such circumstances, the said
plea of applicant/accused can not be a ground in his favour.
The applicant/accused has claimed that he is a resident of
Kolkata. However, if he is released on interim bail, he will reside along
with his relative at Bandra, Mumbai. A judicial note can be taken that
:8:
Bail Application No. 599/2020
the day to day increase in Covid-19 positive patients is high in Bandra
area. The said number is continuously increasing at an alarming rate by
each passing day.

It is also required to be noted that two Medical
Officers viz. Dr. Amol Dawane & Dr. Yogesh Kokidwar are available at
Arthur Road Jail. The Jail Authorities have informed the Court that
handwash, soaps & sodium hydrocloride are regularly provided to the
jail inmates in the jail premises. Other medicines as well as preventive
medicines & vitamins are also provided to all the inmates in Arthur
Road Jail. These all factors negate the claim of applicant/accused that
only due to epidemic of Covid-19, he should be release on temporary
bail.

In the circumstances, the application deserves to be rejected.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :ORDER
Bail Application No. 599/2020 in CBI Special Case No.
117/2015 stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court.)

(Jayendra C. Jagdale)
The Special Judge for CBI,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

Dated : 24/06/2020
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
: 24/06/2020
: 24/06/2020
: 24/06/2020
:
:9:
Bail Application No. 599/2020
УCertified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
judgment/orderФ.
Upload Date & Time : 24/06/2020 at 2.10 p.m.
Smt. G. K. Kotawadekar
Name of the Stenographer
H.H.J. SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE (C. R. No. 51)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order :-24/06/2020
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on :-24/06/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on :-24/06/2020