Shivani Pandey-
Published on: August 7, 2021, at 13:25 IST
Bombay High Court rejected the Plea filed by Raj Kundra questioning his remand to custody and consequent orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate in the Porn Racket Case.
Justice AS Gadkari held that “The remand order of July 19, 2021, is within the conformity of law and does not require interference”.
Kundra was booked under Sections 292, 293 (sale of obscene material) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) Sections 292, 293 (sale of obscene material) of the Information Technology Act, and under the purview of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
Raj Kundra challenged his custody on the grounds that the maximal punishment for the offences alleged against him is up to 7 years and that the notice by the Police under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was served despite having no intention to arrest Kundra.
In his plea, Kundra also mentioned that it was illegal to arrest him without conforming to the requirement of law and the guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar Judgment and In Re: Contagion.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda representing Kundra stated that the reason for adding Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code as a charge against Kundra was a reconsideration to meet the requirements to entertain this petition.
Mr. Ponda stated that “The request of the Mumbai Police seeking Kundra’s custody and extension of custody changed with each remand, and were inconsistent. In addition, there was nothing on record to show that the evidence had been deleted when there was a panchnama made.”
Chief Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai, representing the Mumbai Police, stood firm against the plea, mentioning that, “Kundra had been arrested only because he had denied acknowledging the notice under Section 41A CrPC, which established the fact that there was no intention to co-operate from his end”.
Also Read-
Raj Kundra, Viaan Industries fined for Infringing Insider Trading Norms
