Porn films case: Element of inducement missing from case against Raj Kundra, says magistrate

The court said if statements of witnesses were perused, then the element of inducement which is a prime ingredient of cheating appears to be missing from the porn films case against Raj Kundra

The metropolitan magistrate court that granted bail to businessman Raj Kundra on Monday, has observed in its detailed order that the element of inducement, a prime ingredient of cheating, appears to be missing from the case. The court also took into consideration that the investigation is completed and there is no possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence.

Raj Kundra walks out of Arthur Road jail after being granted bail by magistrate court in connection with the porn films case, in Mumbai, on Tuesday. (Bhushan Koyande/HT PHOTO)

The court granted bail to Kundra, who was arrested in July by the Mumbai crime branch along with his Information Technology (IT) head Ryan Thorpe, on a surety of ₹50,000 each on Monday.

Additional chief metropolitan magistrate, Sudhir B Bhajipale further observed that the crime branch has filed a 4,000 pages charge sheet that has 64 witnesses. The investigation officer has taken care of recording statements of witnesses under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The server, laptops, and mobiles of Viaan Industries are already in the custody of the investigating officer. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a possibility of tampering with the evidence.

The court said if statements of witnesses were perused, then the element of inducement which is a prime ingredient of cheating appears to be missing from the case of the prosecution.

All the accused in the case are on bail and in such circumstances, only on the grounds that further investigation is in progress, the accused cannot be kept behind bars till the conclusion of the trial. The offences nowhere provide punishment for more than seven years.

It is better to mention here that the trial will take its own time and in such circumstances, it will be not proper to keep the accused in custody when they are ready to furnish surety for their appearance and to abide by the conditions imposed by the court, the court added.

The agency has already seized my computer, DVD’s, CDs from my office and nothing is left for further investigations or for my further custody. The investigation is complete, there is no chance of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses as statements have already been recorded before the magistrate, the court added.