Porn Films Case: Hearing on businessman Raj Kundra’s bail plea adjourned till August 20

The hearing on the bail plea of ​​actor Shilpa Shetty’s businessman husband Raj Kundra has been adjourned to August 20. A similar decision has also been taken for his colleague Ryan Thorpe, who was also arrested for alleged production and streaming of pornographic material on the apps. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had dismissed their petitions challenging their arrest and the remand orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate’s court. Kundra and Thorpe were arrested last month and were initially remanded to police custody and later to judicial custody.

On Saturday, dismissing the submissions made by Kundra and Thorpe, and dismissing their submissions, the High Court said, “The custodial remand by the Metropolitan Magistrate is in accordance with the law and does not require any interference.”

Actress Shilpa Shetty and Thorpe’s husband Kundra, in their petitions, had termed their arrest as illegal, saying that the mandatory provision of issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was not complied with. He had urged the High Court to order his immediate release and set aside two orders of a magistrate’s court to remand him in custody.

As per Section 41A of CrPC, police can, in cases where there is no warrant of arrest, initially only issue summons to an accused person and record his statement. The police had claimed that such a notice was served, but Kundra refused to accept it.

Senior advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for Kundra in the High Court, had argued that even if Kundra had refused to accept the 41A notice, as alleged by the police, the prosecution would have been asked to sue under Section 41A(4). was expected to seek the permission of the court. CrPC before arrest

Ponda said the arrest of Kundra and the seizure of his phone, other electronic devices, etc. took place on July 19, a late addition to the charge related to destruction of evidence by the police.

He said this allegation was added to the FIR only on July 23 and there was no document or panchnama to show that Kundra had destroyed evidence before his arrest.

Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, appearing for Thorpe, also argued that there were discrepancies in the claims made against Thorpe by the Crime Branch of Mumbai Police while seeking his custody.

Chandrachud had argued that while a 41A notice was issued to Thorpe, he was not given time to comply or respond to it.

“He was arrested before Thorpe could act on the notice,” he said.

Chief Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai, appearing for the police, told the high court that several video clips have been recovered from Kundra’s laptop and there is enough evidence to warrant arrest and custody against him and Thorpe.

While Kundra was arrested on July 19, Thorpe was arrested the next day.

He was booked under several sections of the IPC and the IT Act on charges of voyeurism, sale of obscene material, cheating, destruction of evidence and transmission of sexually explicit material, etc. Both are currently in judicial custody.

– With PTI input