Raj Kundra: Bombay High Court Judgment Challenging Arrest

Date

Description of events

February 5,      2021

A case was originally registered with Malvani Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 354(c), 292, 293, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 66(E), 67, 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3,4,6 and 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

April 3,     2021

A charge sheet has been filed on 3rd April 2021 in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai.

July 19,      2021

Raj Kundra along with 11 other people was arrested by the Mumbai police on charges related to the alleged creation of pornographic films. Charges alleged against him was under Sections 354(C) (Voyeurism),420 (cheating), 34 (common intention), 292, and 293 (related to obscene and indecent advertisements and displays) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the IT Act and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. Raj Kundra was sent to police custody till July 23, 2021.

July 20,    2021

Kundra claimed that he was not served a notice to join the investigation u/s 41 of the CrPC even though the offences were not punishable with imprisonment of over 7 years. He submitted that Section 67 A of the IT act talks about sexually explicit acts. He argued that only the actual act of intercourse can be considered porn and the rest was all just vulgar content. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Mumbai remanded businessman Raj Kundra and his associate Ryan Tharp to police custody till the 23rd of July in a connection with the Mumbai Crime Branch’s ongoing investigation pertaining to the alleged production and distribution of pornographic videos.

July 23,   2021

The petition is filled in Bombay high court under article 227 of the Constitution seeks to quash the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on July 20 remanding Kunda to police custody.

“Notice in the matter where FIR is registered on 05.02.2021, the Charge sheet is filed on 03.04.2021 and they could have easily served notice and could have allowed the Petitioner to appear and give his statement and if the Petitioner failed to do so the consequences would have followed. However, if the Petitioner failed to do so the consequences would have followed. However, if the Petitioner did appear then under Section 41A (3), he should not be arrested at all, is the mandate of law,” the plea avers.

July 27,   2021

A court in Mumbai sent Raj Kundra along with his associate Ryan Thorpe to judicial custody for 14 days.

July 28,    2021

Chief   metropolitan magistrate (CMM) court rejected bail petition filed by raj Kundra on following grounds :

INVESTIGATION UNDERWAY: the court observed that even a charge sheet is filed against all accused but a further investigation as required U/sec. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is still going on against both the accused.

NATURE OF OFFENCE: court observed that the effect of allege offence is having nexus with the public at large. The alleged offence is also detrimental to the health of our society

July 28,   2021

SEBI Imposes Rs 3 Lakh Penalty On Raj Kundra, Shilpa Shetty, Viaan Industries For Violating Insider Trading Norms. On October 29, 2015, VIL made a preferential allotment of 5, 00,000 equity shares to four persons and in the said preferential allotment 1, 28,800 shares each was allotted to Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra. In this regard, pursuant to the allotment of the shares through the preferential allotment, both of them were required to make the necessary disclosure to the company in terms of the provisions of Regulation 7(2) (a) of the PIT Regulations, as the relevant transactions in question through the aforementioned preferential allotment exceeded Rupees Ten Lakh in value. Further, in terms of Regulation 7 (2) (b) of the PIT Regulations, the Company was required to make the necessary disclosures to the stock exchange within two trading days of the receipt of the disclosures from Shetty and Kundra. During the course of the investigation, the market regulator observed that Shetty and Kundra had failed to make the relevant disclosures required under Regulations 7 (2) (a) and 7 (2) (b) of the PIT Regulations within the stipulated time period

July 29,   2021 and  July 30,   2021

Shilpa Shetty Approaches Bombay High Court Seeking Restraint On Publication Of Alleged Defamatory Content By Media. On July 30, 2021, Mumbai high court was directed to remove certain videos that are prima facie defamatory to the petitioner. The court observes “The considerations in a defamation case, and the wide protection recognised for the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press will have to be balanced against the right of privacy. It is possible that the exceptions to free speech will have to be exceedingly narrowly tailored. But it is not possible to fail to recognise the constitutional pinnings of the right to privacy nor to say that because a person is a public figure of some sort, therefore,that person must be deemed to have sacrificed his right to privacy.

Aug 7,      2021

Bombay high court rejects the bail petition challenging Kundra’s remand order. Court held that the protection granted to a suspect under S. 41A of the CrPC will not apply if the accused indulges in destroying incriminating material.

 The court observes that “After service of notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., what is expected under the law from the accused is to co-operate in the process of investigation and not to indulge in destruction of incriminating material/evidence against him/her, which the investigating agency intends to seize or to take it into its custody for the purpose of investigation of a crime.”