Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Saturday rejected the challenge of Raj Kundra’s businessman for his “illegal” arrest and returned in connection with suspected cases “production and streaming pornographic content” through the application, and ordered his request for orders.
HC is also rejected.
The similar petition was submitted by Ryan Thorpe who was accused of being together.
Mid-Kundra is that there is a violation of the provisions of mandatory under criminal law regarding the arrest of first issuing notifications below the CRPC 41A section, looking for appearance and explanation in front of her violation.
Called with a maximum sentence of seven years.
Prosecution denied every violation.
Justice Ajay Gadkari from HC while saying the dismissal of their petitions said that their arrest on July 19 and detention in accordance with the legal provisions.
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) Part 41A (1) is a provision to look for the appearance of a suspect before the police station for an explanation when the intention is not to capture immediately, in cases where the violation attracts a prison sentence of up to 7 years.
The first 7th board was on July 20 before the additional Metropolitan Magistrate at the Esplanade Court SB Bhajipale.
The second back board was also for police prisoners on July 23, and on July 27 The Esplanade court sent him to trial detention.
The judge rejected Plea his guarantee on July 29.
He separately challenged the collapse of the guarantee before the session court.
Aruna Pai Public Prosecutor has submitted a written statement from the police before HC in return for their petition.
Affidavit said that when they went to find the Kundrra office on July 19, the defendant began removing whatsapp groups and chatting texts, therefore destroyed evidence.
PAI has told the HC that the police then added the destruction of evidence as another violation to them.
At the last HC session on August 2, senior Aabad Ponda adviser with the Advocate Subhash Jadhav appeared to Kundrra said that the “silly” and “devotional” and “devotional” disparies when the punchnamu silent about the destruction or removal of the chat on the day was the search and as well as the first two applications of the police .
“It did not change the position that there were no removal records (on July 19),” Ponda said.
He also cited the command of the Supreme Court to argue that the mandatory procedure in the arrest must be followed and the May order from the chairman of the judge however, the Indian bench to argue that especially in the Covid-19 pandemic, the provisions must be followed.
PAI, opposed Kundrra’s request, however, has added that more videos found by police with two applications that “obscene and thick films”.
He said the police had served Kundra and his colleague Ryan Thorpe part 41a notice under the CRPC.
He said while Thorpe received the notification, Kundra had refused and the police arrested him for non-cooperation and to delete data.
Ponda argues that if a notification, as a police said, not accepted, the provisions of the law they should follow are part 41A (4) which requires them to look for court permits for each arrest.
The police did not do that, he argued.
Ponda argued that the police case was “really falsified” as “it seems that this cellphone was taken over at Punchnama.
“He said the seizure record would show” his cellphone was in police custody.
It can be seen from common sense and naked from the items confiscated at 19.07.2021.
“He said from Kundra, two hard disks, 1 laptop and 1 cellphone taken under a blow.” If so, then of course, the Applicant (Kundra) cannot delete the WhatsApp or WhatSApp data or chat group, “said Ponda, which was assisted by Advocate Subhash Jadhav.
In the second detention, the alleged reference was made in February and the previous guess, in June and November 2020, he said.
Even the advice of Thorpe Abhinav Chandrachud argued that the second remand never mentioned July 19 “deletion” but for efforts “February 2021 ” previously.
You may also like
About the author
