No Anticipatory Bail to Raj Kundra, Poonam Pandey and Sherlyn Chopra in 2020 Porn Case

The anticipatory bail applications of six people in a 2020 porn videos case, including Raj Kundra, Sherlyn Chopra, and Poonam Pandey, were denied by the Bombay High Court on Thursday.

However, Justice Nitin Sambre granted the accused four weeks to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Advertisements

Advertisement

On November 6, 2020, the Nodal Cyber Police, Mumbai, arrested over 20 people under sections 292 (obscenity), 67 and 67A (transmitting sexually explicit material) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, and sections of the Indecent Representation of Women (Protection) Act, 1986.

Madhukar Keni, a 67-year-old retired Customs and Central Excise officer, filed the complaint, and the accused were arrested.

On October 31, 2020, he approached the Cyber Police with a pen drive and a complaint against several adult content platforms.

He claimed that when Sherlyn Chopra’s name was typed into a search engine, obscene videos appeared on the screen.

Raj Kundra, through his lawyers, stated that his name was not included in the FIR filed last year and that he had cooperated with investigators.

He claimed that in February 2020, one of his acquaintances approached him about investing in Armsprime Media Pvt Ltd, a company that provided a digital platform for artists to showcase their talents and interact with clients.

The venture planned to operate on a subscription basis. Kundra stated in his petition that he thought the venture’s concept was unique and a genuine business decision. Furthermore, he was only with the company from February to December 2020, and he had never taken an active role in contract development or content creation.

Kundra was recently granted anticipatory bail in another case involving obscenity.

Sherlyn Chopra described herself in her anticipatory bail application as “a businesswoman and an artist in the business of creating a) films, short films, and web series for the Indian market, and b) adult content for the international market via a subscription-based global website.

Throughout, Chopra and Pandey were under interim protection.

Chopra stated in her application that the freely available porn site content referred to in the FIR is all pirated, a violation of copyrights. She is merely a source of content for the original platform.

Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles