Mumbai court grants bail to Shilpa Shetty's husband Raj Kundra in pornography case

  • | Monday | 20th September, 2021

Raj Kundra, husband of Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty, was arrested on July 19. A case has been registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act.

A Mumbai court has granted bail to Shilpa Shetty`s husband Raj Kundra in a pornography case on a surety of Rs 50,000. Along with Raj Kundra, the accused Ryan Thorpe has also been granted bail by the court.

Raj Kundra, husband of Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty, was arrested on July 19. A case has been registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act.

It is to be known that businessman Raj Kundra, an accused in the pornographic film case, filed a bail application in the court on Saturday, claiming that he is being made a `scapegoat` and there is no evidence in the supplementary charge sheet filed in the case that the alleged objectionable film Prove their direct involvement in the making.

The Crime Branch, which is probing the case, has recently filed a supplementary charge sheet against Kundra and three others for allegedly making porn films and broadcasting them with the help of certain apps. Thereafter the accused moved the Metropolitan Court and argued that the matter has been practically investigated.

In the bail application filed through advocate Prashant Patil, Kundra had claimed that till date the prosecution does not have a single evidence to link the `Hotshots` app with the crime on the basis of law. According to the prosecution, the accused used to upload and stream pornographic material through the Hotshots app.

The bail application also said that there is not a single allegation against the present applicant (Kundra) in the entire supplementary charge sheet to indicate that he was actively involved in the shooting of any video. Rather it is at the discretion of the artist whether to upload the content to the App or not.

The application had said that the contents of the complaint prima facie do not disclose any offense against Kundra. The application claimed that Kundra was wrongly implicated in the case. His name was not there in the FIR but the respondent (police) forcibly dragged his name in the case.


If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


Stay updated with all the Mumbai Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.

Related Articles