MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday concluded hearing in Raj Kundra’s challenge to his arrest and remand in connection with a case of alleged “production and streaming of pornographic content” via apps, and reserved his plea for orders.
His lawyer reiterated that the prosecution’s submission of the businessman deleting some chats on the day of the search to justify his arrest was an “afterthought.” Kundra was arrested on July 19 by Mumbai police and has been in magisterial custody in jail since July 27.
Senior counsel Aabad Ponda, in his rebuttal before Justice Ajay Gadkari to public prosecutor Aruna Pai’s submissions, said the seizure panchanama after the search and remand plea did not show anything about deletion of chats which the state is stressing on now. “It does not change the position that there is no record of deletion (on July 19),” he said.
Pai added more videos were found by police on two apps which were “obscene and bold films.” She said police had served Kundra and his co-accused Ryan Thorpe the Section 41A notice under CrPC (a provision to seek appearance of suspect before police station for an explanation when intention is not to arrest immediately when offence attracts up to 7 years’ imprisonment). She said while Thorpe accepted the notice, Kundra had refused, and police arrested him for non-cooperation and for deleting data.
Ponda said police’s case is “falsified” as “apparently the mobile is taken charge of in the panchanama.” He said the seizure record will show his “mobile is in custody of the police.” He said from Kundra, two hard disks, one laptop and one mobile phone were taken charge of under the panchnama. “If this is so, then necessarily, the petitioner (Kundra) cannot delete data or WhatsApp groups or WhatsApp chats,” said Ponda, assisted by advocate Subhash Jadhav. The PP said deletion of chats was prior to serving of the notice.
Even Thorpe’s counsel Abhinav Chandrachud argued the second remand never mentioned any July 19 “deletion” but to a prior “February 2021” attempt. Thorpe also challenge his arrest and remand as illegal, and HC will now pronounce its order in both their petitions.
