Mumbai: There has been “ridicule” from legal requirements before the arrest as mandated by law and the Supreme Court, said the businessman Raj Kundra on Thursday before the Bombay High Court.
Kundra and colleagues accused Ryan Thorpe have challenged their arrest as illegal in the case of alleged “production and streaming pornographic content”.
In a written statement, the state said the police filled the law, has published a notification below Section 41A (1) Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) for both, it was accepted by Thorpe but “rejected” by Kundra.
Country answers submitted by Cell Property Inspector Police Mumbai, DCB, CID on Thursday said “Rejection to receive notification implies” rejection to work with investigations and besides, on July 19, both of them were accused, “evidence of evidence that caused evidence of violations to disappear …
therefore taken to Crime Brance “and then arrested.
“The police never gave him a notice below Section 41a (1) Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) and never in the first detention application mentioned like that,” said the senior Aabad Ponda advisor for Kundra who was the husband of the actor Shilpa Shetty.
Long arguing before justice Ajay Gadkari, he said “assuming, without acknowledging” that Kundrra refused to sign notice, the legal option before the police “did not shake it” but to approach the judge for permission as a mandate part of 41a (4).
Ponda and advocate subhash jadhav also said, “The first or second age is said that Kundrra or his colleagues tries to destroy or delete any text …
maybe realize that S41A applies and they should not act like that, so they have now in fresh affidavit create circumstances This new “.” If the police are now said that Kundrra did not recognize the notification below Section 41A (1), even then the police could not arrest him without obtaining permission from Judge 41a (4), “Emphasizing advice.
He quoted the 2014 Supreme Court assessment at Arnesh Kumar to say That a judge did not have the power to let go of someone to be detained if a violation of up to 7 years in prison, the police did not comply with part 41 a which was the first notice of being issued to ensure the presence and explanation in front of the police station.
Ponda said, the judge said Detention in just one line said the arrest was legal.
He argues, “SC said the remand cannot be forwarded mechanically.
Is it not the judge’s duty to see Arnesh Kumar’s compliance? “He added,” On July 19, the police came with cases they did not want to catch and then they had to give a reasonable breathing time to appear.
They don’t wait this.
They caught the same night Kundra after 10 pm.
, “SC, he said, I have imagined” two weeks “so the notice was released, the police did not give Kundra” even two days “said Ponda.
Raj Case: ‘There is no obedience in the principle of arrest’
