Things took a downward spiral when Shilpa Shetty’s husband Raj Kundra was arrested by the Mumbai Police for allegedly being a ‘key conspirator’ in making and distributing pornographic films. He was summoned by the police earlier this year as well, but Raj denied all the rumours and had also applied for anticipatory bail. He was presented at the court yesterday and his Raj has now been taken into judicial custody for 14 days.
Amid all the rumours around the fresh set of complaints filed against the businessman, a few rumours went on to claim that actress and model Celina Jaitly was also offered to be a part of Raj’s app. The actress has now denied all those rumours to state that she has no connection to Raj Kundra’s app. In fact, her spokesperson also went on to share that Celina was approached to be a part of Shilpa Shetty’s app.
“Celina was approached for Shilpa Shetty’s app JL Stream, which is a decent influencers’ app for professionals. She wasn’t approached for HotShots; she even doesn’t know what it is all about. Since Shilpa is a good friend of Celina and they share a warm and friendly rapport, she was invited to join,” said the spokesperson.
Telling ETimes, the spokesperson further stated, “No, Celina’s commitments did not allow her to join the app when it was launched. Not just Celina, many other B-town actresses were approached to be part of this app.”
Raj has been arrested under Indian Penal Code – sections 354(C) (Voyeurism), 292 (sale of obscene content), 420(cheating) of the IPC and Sections 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the IT Act and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
Raj’s bail petition was filed under Article 277 of the Constitution to countermand the order passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on July 20 that remanded the businessman in police custody.
As per a report in Live Law, Raj’s bail plea states “Notice in the matter where FIR is registered on 05.02.2021, the Charge sheet is filed on 03.04.2021 and they could have easily served notice and could have allowed the Petitioner to appear and give his statement and if the Petitioner failed to do so the consequences would had followed. However, if the Petitioner did appear then under Section 41A (3), he should not be arrested at all, is the mandate of law.
