E-Paper
Madras HC extends interim anticipatory bail for Kunal Kamra
The stand-up comedian had sparked controversy after uploading a video in which he allegedly insulted Maharashtra deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
The Madras high court on Monday extended the interim anticipatory bail granted to comedian Kunal Kamra till April 17, in connection with the FIR lodged against him at Mumbai over his alleged remarks against Maharashtra's deputy CM Eknath Shinde, reported LiveLaw.
The stand-up comedian's advocate approached the court today to inform it of three new FIRS that had been filed against Kamra in Maharashtra.
Also Read: Bombay high court to hear Kunal Kamra’s plea for FIR quashing on Tuesday
He also alleged that authorities had displayed hostile behaviour towards Kunal Kamra, including harassing his elderly parents, as per a report by LiveLaw.
On March 28, the court granted interim anticipatory bail to Kamra till April 7.
Kunal Kamra had also approached the Bombay high court to quash a an FIR registered against him by the Maharashtra police. The case will be heard by a division bench headed by Justice Sarang Kotwal on Tuesday, April 8.
Eknath Shinde joke row
Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra performed a parody song during a show in Mumbai which allegedly made veiled references to Maharashtra's deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
In the song, he allegedly called Shinde a “gaddar”(traitor) and made sarcastic remarks about his role in the split of the Shiv Sena into two factions.
Also Read: BookMyShow removes Kunal Kamra's all content after Shiv Sena leader's letter amid 'traitor' joke row
After a video of the performance was uploaded on YouTube, Shiv Sena workers vandalised the studio where the song was recorded. An FIR was also registered against Kamra based on Shiv Sena legislator Muraji Patel's complaint on March 24.
Despite receiving three summons from Mumbai police, Kunal Kamra has not yet appeared for questioning in the case filed against him.
In a plea to the Bombay high court, asking for the FIR against him to be quashed, Kamra argued that the case against him infringed upon his constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, right to profession and business of choice, and right to life and liberty.
