In the Raj Kundra case, the Mumbai Police gave a detailed account of Kundra’s arrest and told Bombay High Court that the accused “started destroying evidences”. The Bombay High Court adjourned Kundra’s plea which claimed that his arrest was illegal. Further, the Mumbai Police went into the detail of Kundra’s non- cooperative behavior which led to his subsequent arrest.


With every passing day, new developments pertaining to Raj Kundra’s pornography scandal emerge. Recently, the Bombay High Court was hearing a plea submitted by Kundra which claimed that his arrest was illegal as he wasn’t provided legal notices before his arrest as mandated by the law. Kundra and Ryan Thorpe, who was his associate, and now looked as his partner-in-crime, are seeking interim bail pending the time their petition of complete quashing of case is heard.

Mumbai Police told the Bombay High Court that accused Kundra and others refused to accept notice pertaining to CrPc’s Section 41A (Notice of appearance before police officer) and indicated that he and other accused were refusing to co-operate with the ongoing investigation in the pornography scandal.

Also Read: SEBI Imposed Penalty of Rs 3 Lakh on Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra for Insider Trading

What Did Raj Kundra’s Plea Sought?

In Kundra’s plea an affidavit was filed which attacked his detainment by the police and all other orders passed by the Magistrate Court in relation to the pornographic content scandal. According to affidavit, Kundra held a British passport and is an OCI (overseas citizen of India).

What did the Mumbai Police Claim?

However, the police claimed that it had sent Kundra and other accused a notice under CrPc’s Section 41 A which sought them to take to the Mumbai Police’s Crime Branch office. The police claimed that Kundra and accused refused to accept the notice and showed that they were not interested in being co-operative.

Further, the police also claimed that they had to arrest Kundra and other accused as they started destroying evidences pertaining to the case and the police couldn’t remain as ‘mute spectators’ to such an action.

Also Read: Raj Kundra Case: Shilpa Shetty Interrogated for 6 Hours, Kundra’s Police Custody Extended

“Instead of co-operating, they started deleting content…”

Public prosecutor Aruna Pai who was representing Mumbai Police told the Bombay High Court that-

“Instead of co-operating, they started deleting content from the WhatsApp groups and chats. Thus, they started destroying evidence. When an accused starts destroying evidence, the investigating authorities cannot be mute spectators, they have to prevent them.  Therefore, in order to prevent them, they were arrested.”

Refusal to accept notice implies refusal to cooperate

The affidavit by the Mumbai Police also said-

“The fact that the petitioner refused to accept the said notice implies that he refused to cooperate in the investigation. Apart from this, petitioner and his IT technician Ryan Thorpe also started deleting from the WhatsApp group and chat, thereby causing evidence of the offence to disappear and tamper with such evidence. Hence, in order to prevent them, accused Kundra and Thorpe were brought to property cell, crime branch for probe, and thereby they were arrested.”

She further argued that the law was under the gamut of legality as Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) was added against Kundra and other accused.

Also Read: Raj Kundra Arrest: A Tip off, A Raid, Multiple Arrests – This is How Cops got to Kundra

“Police Could’ve Gone to Magistrate”, Kundra’s Advocate Argues

To this, Kundra’s representative Advocate Ponda argued that the Mumbai Police’s arrest of Kundra was illegal without complying with law requirements. Mr. Ponda further argued that Kundra had no time on his hand to comply with the notice or respond to it. Moreover, Ponda also stated that the police could have approached Magistrate if they had assumed Kundra had refused to acknowledge their notice.

Due to lack of enough time, the matter has now been adjourned for further hearing and a response by the Mumbai Police is now awaited.