Mumbai: find no substance in their opinion that they cannot remove chat from cellphones in front of 22 police attended to search, the Bombay High Court on Saturday rejected two petitions, one submitted by Shilpa’s husband Shetty Kundra and the others by accepting Ryan Thorpe, challenging their legal legality and detention.
The police have arrested Kundrra and Thorpe on July 19 in the case of February 2021 allegations “production and streaming pornographic content” through two applications.
Justice Ajay Gadkari said their arrest and detention ordered by the Head of the Additional Court of the Metropolitan Metropolitan S B Bhajipale was legitimate.
HC said the police had recorded satisfaction that the arrest was required and the judge had read a diary and expressed his satisfaction that the custodian interrogation needed.
Judge orders may not be complicated, with the expectations of the duo, but HC said it met with a legal mandate.
The duo said the mandatory provisions regarding the arrest was placed by the police, and since the arrest was “illegal,” the judge could not release them in the police or custody of the judiciary.
The Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai said the duo began to remove the chat when the police team landed at Kundrra’s office on July 19 to find a place, therefore destroyed evidence, which he said later.
“Other data is being taken,” he said.
Aabad Ponda’s senior adviser with Hitesh Jain’s advocate, appearing for Kundrra, has questioned the police claim, said there was no aspect of removal mentioned in Pancalama or in two first detention applications.
In addition, why the police issued them in Section 41 A (1) notifications “after” every action caused the loss of evidence, they said.
For Thorpe, Abhinav Chandrachud’s advice and Jadhav Subhash argued that the police were asked to give reasons of arrest, and they also denied allegations of the destruction of evidence on the day of arrest.
Ponda argues that there is a violation of the provisions of mandatory laws on the criminal law regarding the arrest and two-week notice as directed by the Supreme Court in 2014.
He argues that because the crime attracts an imprisonment sentence of up to 7 years, under Section 41A (1) notifications to look for appearance And Kundra’s explanation was mandated because the arrest caused a loss of reputation and anxiety.
The prosecution denied such a violation.
It was said that the notice was released for both and while Thorpe accepted it, Kundra had refused.
Affidavit police said both began to remove the WhatsApp and Chat groups and to prevent them from further destruction, they were taken to the police station and were arrested by NOW that night.
HC said it was clear that when he was arrested, their telephone with them.
HC said a written statement about the oath “had its own significance.” Kundrra’s refusal to receive the notification “clearly implies” he does not want to participate and work together in an investigation.