In conjunction with the Mumbai Crime Branch's ongoing investigation further into the suspected creation and distribution of pornographic movies, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court in Mumbai detained businessman Raj Kundra and his accomplice Ryan Tharp in police custody until 23rd July, Friday.
Sections 354(C) (Voyeurism), 292 (selling of obscene materials), 420 (cheating) of the IPC (1860), Sections 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the IT Act (2000), and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act (1986), have been filed against the accused.
Kundra is a “major conspirator” in the operation, according to the Crime Branch, which has discovered several international transactions involving his corporation, including the company downloading pornographic content from a foreign IP address in London.
Kundra, according to the cops, was the owner of a pornographic content-creating software called 'Hotshot.' Later, the application was purchased by 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 cops, the accused would try to recruit struggling models and actresses. They went on to say that the director of the porn movies was suspected model Gehna Vasisth, and that another detained suspect, Umesh Kamat, worked for Kundra.
They claimed, Kundra created a WhatApp group where he would "watch the income" of the app and offer 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 According to the prosecution, the software was withdrawn from the Google Play market.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 cops had a list of people who purchased the pornographic material. On behalf of Kundra, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda argued that policy custody should be the exception rather than the rule.
He asserted, that Kundra was not issued a notice to join the inquiry under section 41 of the CrPC (1973), notwithstanding the fact that the offences were not punishable by more than seven years in jail. He argued that sexually explicit actions are covered by Section 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the IT Act (2000). He said that only the act of intercourse alone qualifies as porn, and that everything else is merely filthy material. Nothing in the evidence proved that two persons really engaged in sexual activity, they said.
The accused has been subsequently remanded in prison until July 23, 2021.