New Delhi: There is a big sigh of relief for the model and Bollywood actor, Poonam Pandey, with the Supreme Court granted her the interim protection from arrest in the pornography case in which businessman and the husband of Shilpa Shetty, Raj Kundra was arrested earlier.
"No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner (Poonam Pandey), in the case, and we issue notice," the bench, led by Justice Vineet Saran and also comprising Justice BV Nagarathna said.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Maharashtra government after Pandey filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court's order rejecting her anticipatory bail.
The Bombay High Court had dismissed Pandey's anticipatory bail on November 25, 2021, forcing her to approach the Supreme Court seeking immediate relief.
Pandey, in her petition filed before the Supreme Court, said her anticipatory bail plea was rejected despite her co-operation and participation in the investigation conducted by the police.
"No offence, even prima-facie, made out against her, and thereby she may be granted immediate anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court," Pandey in her petition filed before the Supreme Court said.
One Madhukar Keni had lodged a complaint on October 31 with Nodal Cyber Police Station against Raj Kundra, Poonam Pandey, Sherlyn Chopra and various other accused persons, under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 and under Sections 3 and 4 of Indecent Women Representation Act, 1986.
The complainant alleged that websites broadcasting/exhibiting indecent video, audio files having lascivious, lustful, offensive sexual desire messages and videos are openly available through the internet.
Pandey had approached the Supreme Court through Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Soayib Qureshi, claiming that she is the victim in the scenario, not the accused. It was further submitted that the questionable content has already been blocked by the government in 2015.
Further, the petition stated that the petitioner has no role to play in either the functioning of the websites or the online platforms. In fact, the petitioner being a victim herself has taken appropriate legal remedies against the persons who are harassing her. (UNI)
