In the case registered by the Cyber Crime Cell in the year 2020, a decision can come in the Bombay High Court today on the bail application of businessman Raj Kundra. During the hearing held a week ago, the court, while granting interim relief to Kundra, had stayed his arrest till August 25. However, he is already under arrest in another case and is lodged in Taloja Jail, Mumbai.
Apart from Raj Kundra, 11 other people have also been arrested by Mumbai Police in this case. Earlier, Kundra's bail application was rejected by the sessions court. A bench of Justice Sandeep K Shinde is hearing Kundra's anticipatory bail plea.
In this case, advocate Subhash Jadhav says that the allegations against Kundra are baseless. The content created by him does not come under the purview of pornography, but it is erotic content. According to Jadhav, the display of sexual activities is porn, while apart from this, if some content is made, then it comes under the category of pornographic material (vulgar content).
While filing the bail application in the court, Kundra had said that his name was not there in the first FIR of the cyber cell. During the investigation of this case, he went to the cyber cell office several times and recorded his statement and handed over all the necessary documents. If needed further, he will appear before the investigation team. So he should be released on bail.
The court was told on behalf of Kundra that in February 2020, one of his acquaintances approached him to invest in a company named Arms Prime Media Pvt Ltd. The company provides a digital platform for artists to showcase their talent and interact with customers. The app of this company works on the subscription model.
It was told on behalf of Kundra's lawyer Prashant Patil that this business model was unique so he had invested money in it. Kundra said that he had never interfered with the content of the app.
Kundra's counsel Prashant Patil argued that the other co-accused in the case including Sherlyn Chopra and Poonam Pandey were granted interim bail by the High Court. Patil further argued that since the sections against Kundra provide for a maximum sentence of not less than 7 years, there is no justification for keeping him in jail till the final verdict.
During the earlier hearing, Additional Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde had opposed the plea, saying Kundra's role in the case was different from that of the other accused and hence he cannot seek protection on the basis of equality. Shinde sought more time to argue the merits of the petition, which was accepted by the court.
Like and Follow us on :
