Raj Kundra, a businessman, has submitted written notes in his anticipatory bail motion towards the Bombay High Court in connection with the porn case involving Poonam Pandey as well as Sherlyn Chopra. Last week, the Court postponed the situation’s consultation until Monday, November 22. Kundra’s legal team, led by Advocate Prashant Patil as well as Advocate Swapnil Ambure, wrote in his notes that sections 67 and 67(A) of the IT Act are inapplicable to the case.
The Bombay High Court questioned Kundra well about two portions that were forced into the scenario. Only these two elements of the Cyber cell police case remain non-bailable.
The act’s Section 67 addresses the penalties for publishing or sending obscene content in electronic form, while Section 67A addresses the penalties for publishing or transmitting material featuring sexually explicit activities, among other things, in electronic form.
According to Kundra’s documents, which were verified by attorneys Prashant P Patil and Swapnil Ambure, the prosecution’s major claim against the businessman is related to purported personal footage of actors Sherlyn Chopra and Poonam Pandey, who are also co-accused in the case.
The recordings may be sensual, but they don’t feature any genuine sexual movement or the two people engaged in sexual interactions, according to Kundra.
According to the paper, Kundra is not even in the least degree involved in the substantive development, distribution, or, in just about any case, communication of the recordings in question. It is “shot by the specialists, in which the craftsmen honestly gave full assent and understanding and with no intimidation.”
The “Profane Representation of Women (Prohibition) Statute, 1986” might encompass the act in its entirety. According to Kundra’s legal counsel, the entire Act is bailable.
The memo went on to say that Chopra, as well as Pandey, had complete control over telecom and circulation, thanks towards their own OTT application provided by Kundra’s business and that they had been compensated for it.
Kundra, a UK resident, isn’t mentioned in the FIR and it has been brought into the case solely on the basis of the claims of the other co-accused, according to another document provided to the court by legal advisors.
Kundra stated that he joined the board of directors of Armsprime Pvt Ltd, the company that filed the application, in February 2019 and departed in December 2019. Sherlyn Chopra’s claimed the video was allegedly transferred by the artist after Kundra’s departure from the company.
The Mumbai crime department detained Kundra on July 19 for reportedly making and distributing pornographic videos using a subscriber-driven smartphone app called “HotShots.”
Besides from areas of everything Act as well as the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, Kundra was charged under provisions 420 (cheating), 34 (common purpose), 292 and 293 (relating to obscene and indecent ads and exhibitions) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In September, following Mumbai police filing a charge sheet against him, he was once again granted bail.