[Porn Racket case] Refusal by Raj Kundra to accept notice indicates his reluctance to co-operate with probe: Mumbai Police to Bombay High Court

Refusal to accept the notice under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was indicative of Raj Kundra's refusal to co-operate with the investigation ongoing in the porn racket case, Mumbai Police informed the Bombay High Court justifying the businessman's arrest..The affidavit was filed in Kundra's petition assailing his remand to police custody and all subsequent orders passed by the Mumbai Magistrate Court in relation to a pornographic film racket case after the Court called for the same..Show that notice under Section 41A of CrPC was issued: Bombay High Court directs Mumbai Police in Raj Kundra plea .The affidavit stated that Kundra held a British passport and was an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI). One of the co-accused in the case, Umesh Kamat, revealed that Kundra and his IT Technician Ryan Thorpe, also a co-accused in the case, were involved in the serious offence of production and streaming of pornographic content through an app called Hotshots and Bolly fame. .The police stated that they had sent a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC to attend the office of the Crime Branch, Mumbai Police. However Kundra refused to accept the notice. "The fact that petitioner (Kundra) refused to accept the said notice implies that the petitioner refused to co-operate in the investigation in the FIR," the affidavit stated. .The Investigating Officer in the case also stated in the affidavit that the Kundra and Thorpe started deleting WhatsApp messages thereby tampering and causing evidence to disappear. He also apprised that Kundra was first brought to the Crime Branch and thereafter, arrested. .Kundra has been charged for offences under Sections 292, 293 (sale of obscene material) under the Indian Penal Code, Sections 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) under the Information Technology Act and provisions of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.He was arrested by the Mumbai Police on Monday and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade, who remanded him to police custody till July 23, 2021,which was extended till July 27.On Tuesday, the Magistrate remanded Kundra to judicial custody for 14 days.His bail application was rejected on July 28, 2021 by the Magistrate Court. This has also been challenged in the Sessions Court. .During the hearing of the petition before Justice AS Gadkari on Thursday, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda made the following submissions: That the maximum punishment attracted by the offences charged against him are upto 7 years;That the notice given by police under Section 41A was given despite admittedly having no intention to arrest Kundra;That it was completely illegal to arrest him without complying with the requirement of law and the guidelines in the Arnesh Kumar judgment and In Re: Contagion..Ponda argued that assuming the notice was given in a legitimate manner, Kundra had no time to respond or comply with the notice. Arguing further, Ponda stated that assuming Kundra did refuse to acknowledge the notice, the police had an option to approach the Magistrate under Section 41A(4) of the CrPC before arresting Kundra. .After Ponda concluded his submissions, due to paucity of time, the matter was adjourned to Saturday for hearing the response of Mumbai Police.