'Element Of Inducement Which Is Vital To Prove Cheating Absent' : Mumbai Court In Raj Kundra's Bail Order

The element of inducement, which is vital to prove cheating, is missing from the Mumbai Crime Branch's case against businessman Raj Kundra, the court has observed in his bail order. Metropolitan Magistrate SB Bhajipale, who granted bail to Kundra and his associate yesterday, said that the accused couldn't be kept behind bars till the end of the trial merely for further investigation. The accused walked out of prison this morning. "If the statements of witnesses are perused, then the element of inducement which is prime ingredient of cheating appears to be missing from the case of prosecution….In such circumstances, only on the ground that further investigation is going on, the accused cannot be kept behind bars till conclusion of trial," the court ordered. The Mumbai police crime branch arrested Kundra and Ryan Thorpe on July 19, 2020. They sought bail on Saturday after the police filed a 1,467-page supplementary charge sheet against them. According to the police's, Kenrin Private Limited, a UK-based company, owned the Hotshots app, and investigations revealed that Kundra, through his company Viaan industries, was managing the App. Kundra's company Arms Prime Media Ltd is alleged to have developed and sold 'Hotshots App' to Kenrin Pvt Ltd, which Kundra's relative Pradip Bakshi owns. The court said it seems an accountant at Viaan Industries, Megha Jaiswal's statement has been recorded to connect the accused with the transactions of Viaan Industries. "However, from her statement only it can be gathered that transactions took place between Kenrin and Hotshot and out of said transactions, there was exchange of amount. However, exchange of amount is not an offence levelled against the accused in present charge sheet." In its order, the court further noted that the investigating officer has recorded a few witness statements u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the server, laptops and mobile of Viaan Industries are already in the investigating officer's custody. "In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a possibility of tampering the evidence," the court has said. All the remaining accused are also on bail and the maximum punishment prescribed is seven years, the court noted. The magistrate relied on the case of Sanjay Chandra V / s. Central Bureau of Investigation where the Supreme Court observed that the accused cannot be kept behind bars for an inconsiderable period when the investigation is completed. The 11 accused have been booked under sections 354(C) (Voyeurism), 292 (sale of obscene content), 293 (sale of obscene objects to persons under 20 years of age), 420 (cheating), 201(destruction of evidence) of the IPC and Sections 66E, 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the IT Act and sections of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986.Click Here To Read/ Download Order

'Element Of Inducement Which Is Vital To Prove Cheating Absent' : Mumbai Court In Raj Kundra's Bail Order

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags