The Bombay High Court’s justice PD Naik on Wednesday recused (excused) himself from hearing the anticipatory bail application of businessman and actor Shilpa Shetty’s husband Raj Kundra in the alleged porn film racket case registered by Cyber Crime Cell of Mumbai police in November 2020.
However, in a relief to the businessman, the prosecution has said that they would not arrest him in case till September 13.
Kundra is presently in judicial custody in another FIR registered by the Property Cell of the Mumbai Police in a 2021 in the porn film racket case.
His plea will now be listed before justice Ajey Gadkari next week.
Kundra has approached the HC seeking pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered by Cyber Crime Cell in connection with broadcasting of nude erotic content on OTT platform. He has claimed that he is falsely implicated in the case by the Cyber Crime Cell even.
He has stated in his plea that he is not connected with any of the platforms or the companies named in the FIR. “However, the Respondent (State government) is making an attempt to connect the applicant (Kundra) with the crime, it is necessary to mention that, one of the App ‘Hotshots’ App till date has nothing to do with pornography,” reads his plea.
Besides, there is not a single iota of evidence with the prosecution to connect Hotshot app with the offences alleged as none of the actresses that were arraigned as accused in the case had raised any grievance, claims Kundra.
Kundra was arrested on July 19 by Crime Branch in a case of creation of pornographic films and publishing them through apps. He is presently in judicial custody in the case. The police has already filed chargesheet in the case.
He has said that the chargesheet filed in the 2021 case and the present FIR of November 2020 are identical. He apprehends arrest in the 202 case as well and hence has sought pre-arrest bail.
He has approached the HC after the sessions court rejected his pre-arrest bail in the case.
Recently, the HC had dismissed Kundra’s petition challenging his arrest in the other case terming it as “illegal”.
