Actor Shilpa Shetty’s husband Raj Kundra and actors Sherlyn Chopra and Poonam Pandey were among six people who were denied pre-arrest bail on Thursday in the 2020 porn film case, Live Law reported.
However, the Bombay High Court granted all the accused four weeks to approach the Supreme Court. The other three accused are Suvojit Chaudhari, Sam Ahmed, and Kundra’s associate Umesh Kamat.
The FIR in this obscenity case was registered in October 2020 by the Cyber Cell in connection with the broadcasting of nude erotic content on an OTT platform.
On the basis of a complaint from Madhukar Keni, a 67-year-old retired Customs and Central Excise officer, the FIR was lodged under section 292 (sale of obscene material) of the Indian Penal Code, and sections 67 and 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the IT Act, and provisions of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
On November 6, 2020, over 20 people were booked by the Nodal Cyber Police, Mumbai.
Earlier, in August, the Bombay High Court had granted Kundra protection from arrest in this case and later, this was extended till September 20 when he was in jail in a similar pornography case, which has been under investigation since February 2021.
On September 20, Kundra was granted bail in the 2021 pornography case, in relation to which Chopra’s name has surfaced several times.
Chopra and Pandey were also on interim protection till Thursday.
In his application for pre-arrest bail in the 2020 case, Kundra said his name was not reflected in the FIR filed last year and he had cooperated with investigators. He also added that the Hotshot app had nothing to do with pornography and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case.
He further explained that he was approached to invest in a venture named Armsprime Media Pvt Ltd, which was to work on a subscription model and was allegedly engaged in providing a digital platform to artists to showcase their talents and interact with clients. He claimed that he was associated with the company only between February to December 2020, during which time he had never taken an active part in its contract building or content creation.
Recommended
Chopra, in her anticipatory bail application, described herself as a businesswoman and an artist in the business of creating films, short films, and web series for the Indian market, and adult content for the international market via the subscription-based website, Onlyfans.
Further, Chopra stated that she also creates content for another adult broadcasting company’s website and claimed that the freely available porn content referred to in the FIR is all pirated. She was merely a content provider to the original platform, she added.
Arguing that while such obscene videos and businesses might be legal in another country, the counsel appearing for the police said, “We have to consider the law of our nation. Where is subscription-based adult content allowed in the law?” The counsel further argued that it is easy to circulate adult videos through social media if one person subscribes and downloads them.
After hearing all the arguments, the court rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of all the accused.