Sherlyn Chopra, the actress, has now issued an official comment on Raj Kundra’s arrest in a pornographic case. The Mumbai Police detained Shilpa Shetty’s husband on July 19 after he was deemed the case’s “principal conspirator.”
Sherlyn Chopra made a video statement in which she claimed to be the first individual to provide a statement to the Maharashtra cyber cell. She refused to provide any further information because the inquiry is still ongoing. Poonam Pandey, who recently responded to Raj’s detention, was also targeted by Sherlyn.
Poonam had previously issued an official statement saying, “At this time, my heart goes out to Shilpa Shetty and her children.” I can’t fathom how difficult that must be for her. As a result, I refuse to use this occasion to draw attention to my trauma. The only thing I’ll say is that in 2019, I made a police report against Raj Kundra and then filed a lawsuit against him in the honorable high court of Bombay for fraud and theft. Because this is a pending case, I’d rather keep my comments to a minimum. In addition, I have complete trust in our police and the legal system.”
She had filed a criminal complaint against Kundra and his associates, who worked with her on the app, with the Bombay High Court.
Meanwhile, with the aid of several production firms, the Crime Branch has retrieved 70 films recorded by Kundra’s former PA Umesh Kamat. Raj was apprehended on July 19 and held in police custody until July 23. On the same day, his companion Ryan Thorpe was apprehended by Mumbai cops.
Kundra’s lawyer argued in court on Tuesday that the material should not be classified as pornography. He further objected to Section 67A of the Information Technology Act being applied to conveying obscene information in electronic form, as well as other provisions relating to pornography, because these regulations define “actual intercourse” as porn and everything else as filthy content.
The lawyer went on to say that the cops are watching what’s popular on the internet these days: filthy stuff. It is not, however, considered pornographic. He went on to say that nothing in the remand suggests that two people engaged in sexual activity. As a result, it can’t be classified as porn.
