Bombay High Court Refuses Ad-Interim Relief To Raj Kundra In Porn Film Case
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant ad-interim reliefs to businessman Raj Kundra, husband of actor Shilpa Shetty, in his plea seeking release in a pornography racket alleging "illegal" arrest. Justice AS Gadkari briefly heard senior advocate Abad Ponda for Kundra and said he would want the prosecution's reply on record before passing any order. Following...
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant ad-interim reliefs to businessman Raj Kundra, husband of actor Shilpa Shetty, in his plea seeking release in a pornography racket alleging "illegal" arrest.
Justice AS Gadkari briefly heard senior advocate Abad Ponda for Kundra and said he would want the prosecution's reply on record before passing any order.
Following Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai's assurance that the police will file a reply to Kundra's petition by tomorrow, the case was adjourned to Thursday.
"No ex-parte ad-interim reliefs," Justice Gadkari said.
Kundra was arrested on July 19 and booked under sections 354(C) (Voyeurism), 292 (sale of obscene content), 420(cheating) of the IPC and Sections 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the IT Act and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
In his petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, Kundra has sought to quashthe Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's order on July 20, and all subsequent orders remanding him in custody. Kundra was remanded to 14-days in judicial custody today and has applied for bail.
The HC plea states that the alleged content does not depict explicit sexual acts and sexual intercourse but shows only material in the form of short movies which are lascivious or appeal to the prurient interest of the persons at best.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Ponda argued that Kundra's arrest by the Mumbai Police's Crime Branch is illegal as he was not issued a proper notice of appearance under Section 41A of the CrPC. Instead, he was arrested under the garb of recording his statement.
Ponda argued that Kundra was charged with only two non-bailable offences with a maximum imprisonment of 7 years. Therefore, a 41A notice was imperative according to the judgement in 41 (1)(b) of the CrPC which is amended gives the power to police to arrest conditionally. You must give reason why you are arresting. This was not followed.Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar.
"Section 41 (1)(b) of the CrPC, which is amended, gives the power to police to arrest conditionally. You must give reason why you are arresting. 41A was just given as a formality," he said.
Pai,appearing for the Mumbai Police, said they had served the 41A notice.
"Let her file a reply and we will hear the matter day after tomorrow," Justice Gadkari said.
According to the two remand applications, Kundra's company Arms Prime Media Ltd had developed and sold 'Hotshots App' to another UK based complany called Kenrin Pvt Ltd, which Kundra's relative Pradip Bakshi owns, "to earn money by streaming porn content on social media," the police claim.
As per Kundra's instructions, the crime branch alleged that his arrested employee Umesh Kamat was working as the India coordinator for Kenrin Pvt Ltd and functioning from Kundra's office at Shalimar Maurya Park, Andheri West.
The police claimed that Kundra's active role was revealed as employees of his company Viaan Industries maintained the Hotshots App and were getting remuneration from Kenrin Pvt Ltd in return.
Office searches revealed porn videos related to the Hotshot App, the police said. Therefore, Raj Kundra and his office's IT expert Ryan Thorpe were asked to attend the Crime Branch office via a notice u/s 41(a)(i) of CrPC, the police added.
"During the investigation, Kundra refused to sign the notice u/s 41(a)(i) of CrPC. Therefore, it is clear that he does not intend to cooperate with the investigations," the police alleged.