The
Bombay
High
Court
on
Monday
reserved
its
order
on
petitions
filed
by
businessman
Raj
Kundra
and
his
associate
Ryan
Thorpe
challenging
their
arrest
in
a
case
related
to
alleged
creation
and
streaming
of
pornographic
content
through
apps.
The
police
in
the
HC
argued
that
Kundra
was
not
cooperating
with
the
probe
in
the
case,
filed
in
February
this
year
by
the
Mumbai
crime
branch,
and
had
destroyed
evidence,
a
claim
refuted
by
his
lawyer.
Kundra
(45),
the
husband
of
Bollywood
actor
Shilpa
Shetty,
and
Thorpe,
in
their
applications,
have
termed
their
arrest
as
illegal,
contending
mandatory
provision
of
issuing
notices
to
them
under
section
41A
of
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
(CrPC)
was
not
followed.
The
duo,
in
their
pleas,
sought
the
HC
to
direct
for
their
immediate
release
and
quash
two
orders
passed
by
a
magistrate
after
their
arrest
remanding
them
in
police
custody.
As
per
section
41A,
the
police
may,
in
cases
where
arrest
is
not
warranted,
issue
summons
to
the
accused
person
and
record
his
or
her
statement.
While
Kundra
was
arrested
by
the
crime
branch
on
July
19,
Thorpe,
who
was
employed
as
the
IT
head
in
Kundra's
firm,
was
arrested
on
July
20.
The
duo
is
now
in
jail
under
judicial
custody.
Public
prosecutor
Aruna
Kamat
Pai
on
Monday
told
a
single
bench
of
Justice
A
S
Gadkari
that
notices
under
section
41A
were
indeed
issued
to
both
Kundra
and
Thorpe
before
their
arrest.
“Kundra
refused
to
accept
it
while
Thorpe
accepted
it,”
Pai
said.
She
argued
that
the
accused
(Kundra
and
Thorpe)
were
arrested
due
to
their
conduct
during
the
searches
being
carried
out
by
the
police
at
their
office
premises
on
July
19.
“They
(Kundra
and
Thorpe)
were
found
deleting
certain
WhatsApp
chats.
The
attitude
of
the
applicant
Raj
Kundra
speaks
volume
of
his
cooperation
in
the
investigation.
We
do
not
know
how
much
data
has
been
deleted.
The
police
are
still
trying
to
retrieve
it,”
Pai
said.
She
further
told
the
court
that
section
201
of
the
IPC
(destruction
of
evidence)
was
subsequently
invoked
against
the
accused
persons.
“If
accused
persons
are
destroying
evidence,
then
can
the
investigating
agency
be
a
mute
spectator?”
Pai
asked.
“Kundra
is
the
admin
of
the
app
HotShots
(which
is
at
the
centre
of
the
alleged
porn
racket).
During
searches,
the
police
seized
a
laptop
from
the
office
of
Kundra
in
which
68
porn
videos
were
recovered.
This
is
in
addition
to
the
51
videos
recovered
earlier
from
the
Storage
Area
Network,”
Pai
said.
She
further
argued
that
from
Kundra's
laptop,
the
police
have
recovered
scripts
with
sexual
content
and
a
presentation
on
the
financial
projection
and
marketing
strategy
of
HotShots
and
another
similar
app
BollyFame.
Kundra's
counsel
Aabad
Ponda
refuted
the
police's
allegations
and
said
all
his
devices,
including
his
phone
and
laptops,
were
seized
by
the
police
during
the
search.
Thorpe's
counsel
Abhinav
Chandrachud
argued
that
while
a
notice
under
41A
was
issued
to
Thorpe,
he
was
not
given
time
to
comply
or
respond
to
it.
“Before
Thorpe
could
act
on
the
notice,
he
was
arrested,”
he
said.
Chandrachud
further
said
there
were
several
discrepancies
which
cast
a
doubt
on
the
prosecution's
case.
After
the
lawyers
concluded
their
arguments,
the
HC
reserved
its
order
on
the
petitions.
Kundra,
in
his
plea
in
the
HC,
has
also
said
the
material
which
the
police
claimed
to
be
pornographic
did
not
depict
explicit
sexual
acts
but
shows
material
in
the
form
of
short
movies
"which
are
lascivious
or
appeal
to
the
prurient
interest
of
persons
at
best".
In
a
related
development,
a
sessions
court
on
Monday
reserved
its
order
on
an
anticipatory
bail
application
filed
by
Kundra,
seeking
pre-arrest
bail
in
a
similar
case
related
to
porn
content
registered
by
the
Mumbai
police
last
year.
The
sessions
court
will
pass
its
order
on
the
pre-arrest
bail
plea
on
August
7.