In conjunction with the Mumbai Crime Branch’s ongoing investigation into the suspected creation and distribution of pornographic recordings, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court in Mumbai detained businessman Raj Kundra and his associate Ryan Tharp in police custody until 23rd July 2021.
Sections 354 (Voyeurism), 292 (sale of obscene materials), 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act have been filed against the accused.
Raj is a “key conspirator” in the scam, according to the Crime Branch, which has discovered multiple overseas transactions involving his company, including the company uploading pornographic content from a foreign IP address in London.
Kundra, according to the authorities, was the owner of a pornographic content-creating app called ‘Hotshot.’ Later, the application was sold to accused Pradeep Bakshi, a relative of Kundra, who lives in the United Kingdom. Kundra, on the other hand, was still in charge.
According to the authorities, the accused would try to recruit struggling models and actresses. They went on to say that the director of the porn videos was suspected model Gehna Vasisth and that another arrested suspect, Umesh Kamat, worked for Kundra.
They claim Kundra created a WhatsApp group where he would “watch the revenue” of the app and give directions to other defendants on how to boost revenue. According to the prosecution, the software was withdrawn from the Google Play market.
They also stated that the police had a list of persons who purchased the pornographic content.
On behalf of Kundra, senior counsel AabadPonda argued that policy custody should be the exception rather than the rule.
He said Kundra was not sent a notice to join the investigation under section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even though the offences were not punishable by more than seven years in prison.
He argued that sexually explicit conduct is covered by Section 67 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He claimed that only the act of intercourse alone qualifies as porn and that everything else is just obscene stuff.
Nothing in the evidence revealed that two people engaged in sexual activity, they argued.
The accused was then remanded in jail until July 2021.He argued that sexually explicit conduct are covered by Section 67 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He claimed that only the act of intercourse alone qualifies as porn, and that everything else is just obscene stuff.
Nothing in the evidence revealed that two people actually engaged in sexual activity, they argued.
The accused was then remanded in jail until July 2021.
