Mumbai: Calling actor Jiah Khan, who died by suicide 10 years ago, a “victim of her sentiments”, a special court on Friday acquitted her then boyfriend, actor Sooraj Pancholi, of the charge of abetting her suicide.

Twenty-five-year-old Jiah, a US citizen, was found hanging in her Juhu house on June 3, 2013. The court doubted the suicide note, which her mother, Rabiya, said on June 7 that her other daughter had found in Jiah’s wallet. It also said Rabiya could not explain the delay in lodging a complaint.

“No doubt it is an unfortunate incident that the young girl has committed suicide. However, the available evidence on record reflects that Jiah was a victim of her sentiments,” said special judge A S Sayyad adding, “she could have always walked out of her relationship”.

The court pointed out the police found no suicide note on June 3. The court said that 80% of Rabiya’s “evidence is full of improvements and contradictions”.

The CBI “miserably failed” to establish the abetment charge and “in the absence of any mens rea (guilty mind)” to show any instigation, it cannot be said Pancholi drove Jiah to suicide, said the judge.

------------------------------------------------

Mumbai: Acquitting actor Sooraj Pancholi of the charge of abetment to suicide of his girlfriend Jiah Khan 10 years ago, the CBI court said her mother was the “main and crucial witness” but “80% evidence of complainant is full of improvements and contradictions”.

Special judge A S Sayyad said, “The complainant in her evidence went to the extent to state that whatever letter (was) sent for examination… the handwriting therein was of her. The complainant by stating as such herself created chaos regarding said letter (suicide note).”

The Juhu police had arrested Pancholi, then 21, on June 10, 2013. The son of yesteryear actors Aditya Pancholi and Zarina Wahab stayed in custody till the Bombay high court granted him bail on July 1.

A clean-shaven Pancholi, in olive green shirt, trousers and sneakers, appeared calm as he stepped in the dock on Friday. Addressing him, the judge said: “Due to paucity of evidence, you have been held not guilty. You are acquitted.”

Wahab, who was in court, had tears. Wiping them, she told TOI with folded hands: “I thank God.” As the verdict was pushed back to 12:30 pm, the former actor had sat stoically on a bench, playing a popular game on her phone. Besides Pancholi, his defence counsel Prashant Patil, Rabiya and her counsel Shekhar Jagtap, the court room was packed with mediapersons and law interns.

Rabiya later told TOI that she would appeal the verdict as it was always her case that it “was murder”. The CBI, through prosecutor Manoj Chelladan, examined 22 witnesses in a bid to prove abetment. Pancholi’s lawyer Patil argued the agency had failed and none of the witnesses had pointed fingers at Pancholi, entitling him to be let off.

Accepting Patil’s plea and citing SC rulings on section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), the judgment said testing the evidence on the touchstone of the requirements laid down by the SC to prove instigation, “it will have to be held that the prosecution has utterly failed to produce sufficient and cogent, dependable evidence establish the ingredients”.

On a message that Jiah received and the prosecution relied on to prove abetment, the court said it showed there was misunderstanding between Jiah and Pancholi over Pancholi meeting a woman friend. Moreover, it is “noteworthy” though Rabiya knew of differences in the relationship, “she never complained before anyone”.

------------------------------------------------

Actor Sooraj Pancholi was acquitted of abetment charges on Friday in the Jiah Khan suicide case, nearly 10 after the 25-year-old’s death on June 3, 2013, made national headlines. “Due to paucity of evidence, this court can’t hold you (Sooraj Pancholi) guilty, hence acquitted,” said Special Judge AS Sayyed of the Special CBI Court, while delivering the verdict.

The acquittal will hopefully end a troubled chapter in the life of the embattled actor, who was dating Jiah at the time of her suicide and has faced a decade of public outrage and hostility. Sooraj was accompanied in court by mother Zarina Wahab and a few friends. While there was a media frenzy outside the court, Sooraj looked relatively calm as the verdict was read out. Zarina, though, could not hold back her tears as she stood with folded hands. Mother and son headed to Siddhivinayak Temple afterwards.

Sooraj’s lawyer Prashant Patil said, “None of the judgments since 2013 has gone against Sooraj Pancholi. The matter was investigated by the CBI and Mumbai Police and no evidence was found against Sooraj. It’s easy to make allegations in the media, but to provide evidence is important; 22 witnesses in the case spoke against the abetment theory.”

Sooraj had been charged with abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Jiah’s mother Rabiya arrived in Mumbai from London on Friday morning. Speaking to us after the court’s verdict, she said, “Abetment to suicide was a wrong charge. For the last 10 years, I have been giving evidence and telling the CBI that there are loopholes in the investigation. Jiah’s real cause of death has not been established till date. If it was not abetment, what was it? I have been saying that my child was murdered,” adding, “I will speak to my legal team and take necessary steps. The verdict wasn’t a shock, it was predictable. I was not hoping for any miracle today.”

Rabiya’s lawyer Shekhar Jagtap said, “We may have lost the battle, but the war is still on. The court has acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence. We need to read the judgment and then take appropriate steps.”

------------------------------------------------

The six-page suicide note allegedly written by actress Jiah Khan, due to which a case of abetment of suicide was registered against actor Sooraj Pancholi, turned out to be a factor that resulted in a special CBI court acquitting him on Friday. Pancholi’s advocate, Prashant Patil, claimed that the note was not written by the deceased.

He also stated it was found inside a diary three to four days after the alleged suicide occurred, on June 3, 2013.

Jiah Khan’s mother, Rabiya Khan, addressing the media outside the sessions court on Friday, said, “I have always said that this not a suicide but a case of murder and this verdict further strengthens my claims. I will move the higher court to challenge this order.”

Patil, who claimed that the suicide note and other evidence were planted to “suppress the truth that Jiah Khan was suffering from depression”, has also stated that the forensic report has confirmed that the handwriting in the diary matched that of the suicide note and that the writer of both is the same.

He told mid-day, “Rabiya Khan had testified before the court that this was not a suicide note. Secondly, when the police raided the premises on the day of the suicide, they didn’t find any note. Four days after the incident, somebody came up with the note and it was given to the media, not the police. The note does not mention anybody’s name nor was it signed or addressed to anyone. According to the CBI, the so-called suicide note was seized from a diary. The opinion of handwriting experts is that the author of the diary and the suicide note are the same. During the trial, the prime witness (Rabiya Khan) admitted that the handwriting in the diary is hers. Thus, the suicide note theory and the entire case against my client falls flat.”

He added, “While being cross-examined before the court, Rabia Khan stated that dairy belonged to her. My client spent 22 days in prison and for the past ten years, he has been waiting for justice. Now, justice has prevailed.”

Asked if the writing on the note was ever matched with that of Jiah Khan, Patil said, “The mother never provided her natural handwriting, saying that it was not available with her.”

The advocate further alleged, “Since day one, there has been a modus operandi to suppress the truth and the CBI has never examined two important witnesses. The first is the doctor, who according to the CBI and police, treated Jiah when she had attempted suicide. He had said that she was depressed and had tried to end her life. The second important witness is Moin Beig who helped Jiah’s mother cool the body on the day of the incident. They were not examined because they would have said the truth and the prosecution’s case would have been damaged.”

On Friday, the court pronounced its verdict at 12:30 pm while Pancholi was present inside the courtroom and was later called to the witness box. Special Judge A S Sayyed told Pancholi, “Due to the paucity of the evidence, this court can’t hold you guilty and hence you have been acquitted.”

Pancholi then smiled at his mother, Zarina Wahab, who was present and in tears. She thanked God when reporters inside the courtroom sought a reaction.

Patil, after walking out of the courtroom, said, “For the past ten years, not a single order of high court, special court and the Supreme Court has gone against Sooraj Pancholi. The case was being investigated by India’s two premier agencies, the CBI and the Mumbai Police, and despite that, there is not a single shred of evidence against Pancholi. Twenty-two witnesses were examined and nothing was found against him. It is easy to make allegations in the media but when the evidence comes on record, no one can travel beyond that and the law is above everyone and the court has today acquitted him.”

Terming mental health issues a concern, Patil, said, “The government has introduced the Mental Healthcare Act in 2017 because youngsters are facing depression and anxiety. One of the crux of the argument before the court was [that in the case of] any person who unfortunately commits suicide, a single incident cannot be a triggering point. You have to understand and investigate the economic, social and cultural background of the person since childhood and in this case, we have brought the journey of the deceased since her childhood before the court and some serious incidences have come on record. Three of four incidents were very serious and we assume that because of this, she had no option but to commit suicide.”

He stated that Jiah Khan had attempted to die by suicide prior to June 3. “We told the court if the deceased has suicidal tendencies, why was Sooraj Pancholi falsely implicated and it was a one-sided mala fide targeted investigation,” he said.

Before the court passed its order, Rabiya Khan moved an application before it, stating that there were various discrepancies in the investigation carried out by both agencies. According to the application, they are non-analysis of the deceased’s devices, non-analysis of the ligature found around the deceased, non-analysis of the ligature mark, non-retrieval of the BBM messages between the deceased and accused and lack of mention of the injury marks on the deceased in the post-mortem report.”

The application reads, “It is submitted that the conclusion of the medical evidence also states that death by suicide cannot be ruled out but it is necessary to examine the ligature, however till date, the same was never done, which itself indicates that a proper, impartial, fair and transparent investigation is not done till date.”

Rabiya Khan also stated that both investigating agencies had not collected legal evidence or proof to say this was a mere case of suicide and the first informant believes it is a murder case and the accused is responsible for killing her daughter.

Jiah, 25, a United States resident, was found dead in her Juhu home. On the basis of the letter, the police arrested Pancholi on June 10 and charged him with abetting her suicide. The Mumbai Police, who initially looked into the issue, seized a letter that the CBI claimed was authored by Jiah Khan. According to the central agency, the message detailed Jiah Khan’s alleged “intimate relationship, physical abuse, and mental and physical torture” at the hands of Pancholi.

Jiah’s mother Rabiya Khan, a significant witness for the prosecution, told the court that she thought it was a case of murder rather than suicide. She had petitioned the Bombay High Court for a further probe into the matter, but it was denied last year.

Pancholi released a statement after the verdict that read, “The verdict has taken 10 long painful years and sleepless nights. Today, I have not only won this case against me but I have also won my dignity and confidence back. It took a lot of courage to face the world with such heinous allegations. I hope and pray to God that nobody goes through what I have gone through at such a young age. I don’t know who will give me these 10 years of my life back, but I am glad that this has finally come to an end not only for me but especially for my family. There is nothing bigger than peace in this world.”

------------------------------------------------

“The truth always wins,” wrote actor Sooraj Pancholi on his Instagram Story after he was acquitted in the Jiah Khan death case. On Friday, a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Mumbai gave its verdict in connection with the death of Khan. Pancholi, 32, accused of abetting the suicide of the actor, who he was in a relationship with, was acquitted in the case.

“Due to paucity of evidence, this court can’t hold you (Sooraj Pancholi) guilty, hence acquitted,” said Judge AS Sayyed. Jiah’s mother Rabiya Khan told CNN News18 that Pancholi was cleared only of abetment of suicide. “This is a case of murder,” she said, adding that she intends to pursue the case further.

Pancholi’s mother actor Zarina Wahab who had accompanied him to the court, told a portal: “Satyamev Jayate. [My faith in the judiciary] has been further strengthened. It has been ten years of torture, trauma and stigma for my son.” After the verdict, Pancholi thanked the media for supporting him and distributed sweets to those present. HTC

The Nishabd (2007) actor dies by suicide. She is 25.

A letter purportedly written by Jiah, seized by the police, details her trouble relationship with Pancholi and alleges physical and mental abuse at his hands.

Booking Pancholi under Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of IPC, Mumbai Police arrest the actor.

Pancholi is granted bail and on the next day, the court acquits him, stating the actor is not accountable for Khan’s death.

CBI raids the Pancholi residence after Khan’s mother requests the court for a thorough investigation.

CBI officials rule out murder and state that the actor died by suicide.

Rabiya Khan pens an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, seeking justice.

A special CBI court pronounces its final verdict, acquitting Pancholi.

Rabiya Khan, Jiah Khan’s mother, speaks with media persons outside the court. Pics/Anurag Ahire

Actor-dancer Nora Fatehi, on Monday, filed a defamation suit against actor Jacqueline Fernandez, along with 15 media houses, in connection with the Rs. 200 crore extortion case involving conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar. And Fernandez and her legal team are in no mood to let it go.

“I have not got any official copies out of the courtroom yet. The court has not taken cognizance of that suit. It is only Nora, or somebody else, who has leaked the news into the media. Having said that, if Jacqueline is dragged before the court, we are ready to fight it aggressively,” Prashant Patil, Fernandez’s lawyer, tells us.

According to reports, Fatehi has filed the case over a written plea before the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) court, where Fernandez stated that she was “falsely being implicated by the ED while celebs such as Nora Fatehi, who had also received gifts from conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, had been made witnesses”.

On Fatehi’s claim, Patil shares, “Jacqueline has not consciously given any statement, forget about Nora, about anything for that matter. During the course of arguments, whatever is said, cannot be raised to defamation and can’t be put in public domain.”

Mumbai: Rabiya Khan, a witness in the alleged suicide of her actress daughter Jiah Khan, said on Monday the CBI had edited the statement she had given it in 2014. Actor Sooraj Pancholi is accused of abetting the 2013 suicide.

Cross-examining Rabiya, Pancholi’s lawyer Prashant Patil asked, “You said before the CBI that your statement to Juhu police was shown, that you went through it and it was correct?” Rabiya replied that she had not stated so.

She said she had given the CBI a 26-page statement and it was edited by an officer. “He put his own statement. (This) portion is not correctly stated in it. The beginning is correct. I wrote a statement and sent it to him by email and he put it. I have not said the statement has been read over to me and is correct,” Rabiya said.

Patil also asked her about certain traumatic incidents that reportedly took place when Jiah was a minor. When he suggested that due to the incidents, Jiah had suffered from childhood trauma, she denied it and said highlighting them “is hurting my sentiments”.

Meanwhile, the UK-based Rabiya wanted to move a plea to re-examine the alleged dupatta that was used in the suicide and shown to her last week. She said she was uncertain and felt she didn’t it see it properly. The prosecution opposed any such move.

Patil posed several questions about various litigations and pleas moved by Rabiya, her personal life, including her film career, marriages, Jiah’s childhood and her relationship with her father. Rabiya submitted that a lawyer who had represented her during Sooraj’s bail hearing in 2013 was a fake. “I heard about it later because he sold his soul,” she said.

While the matter will come up for hearing next week, Rabiya’s cross-examination has been deferred to a later date.

Mumbai: A scientific officer of CFSL, a clinical psychologist, who had conducted a forensic psychological assessment on actor Sooraj Pancholi, told the special CBI court that the interview given by him to her seemed to be incomplete and fabricated on relevant issues indicating that he was concealing relevant information about actual reasons behind the alleged suicide of his girlfriend, actor Jiah Khan.

Sooraj is currently facing trial on charges of abetting the 2013 suicide. In her cross-examination by defence advocate Prashant Patil, while the witness admitted that she had given her final opinion based only on the 12 questions given to her by the investigating officer, she denied that her assessment was false and fabricated to support the CBI. “It is not correct to say that I finalised the said report after confirmation with the investigating officer,” the witness said.

During her examination in chief by special public prosecutor Manoj Chaladan, the witness said that during the interview conducted at the CSFL office in 2015 she had asked Sooraj whether he was hiding the actual content of the last conversation as the breakdown of the relationship could not develop in a single day.

“On that question he gave evasive response and became silent with bent head. Sooraj Pancholi was hiding details of last conservation with Nafisa or Zia (sic), that may be caused her death or suicide,” the witness said. She said since it was very important to know Jiah’s state of mind before the incident, she asked Sooraj about his last conservation with her.

During her cross examination by Patil the woman said that she came to know from Sooraj that Jiah had suffered childhood trauma and in response to a separate query accepted that if a mental health patient is not treated on time, the situation may aggravate. She also accepted that to know one’s “psychological state of mind” their childhood trauma and their relationship with immediate blood relative was important. “The investigating officer has not recommended to me to conduct the examination of the mother and sister of deceased,” the woman said.

The woman told the court that “Forensic Psychological Assessment” is a useful technique of psychological evaluation and helps the examiner find out whether a person is guilty or not. The woman, the 15th prosecution witness who said she had assisted CBI in over 1,000 matters, had examined letters and notes allegedly written by Jiah.

Referring to one letter allegedly written by Jiah to Sooraj, the witness in her deposition before special judge AS Sayyad said through the letter she thanked and apologized to him. Pointing to another letter, she said “From the contents of the document that, 'I know you are young and I am very sensitive', would reflect the deceased was sensitive nature. ”

On Wednesday, after a supplementary chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a Rs. 200 crores money laundering case named Jacqueline Fernandez as an accused, her lawyer, advocate Prashant Patil, said, “The agencies have failed to appreciate that she was cheated and conned into this matter.”

A Delhi court will consider on August 31 a supplementary chargesheet filed on Wednesday by the Enforcement Directorate in a Rs. 200 crores money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekar, naming Jacqueline Fernandez as an accused. Fernandez, who was summoned by ED several times in the matter, has been named as an accused in the chargesheet for the first time in the case.

Advocate Prashant Patil, who is representing Fernandez in the matter, said in a statement that they had received information about the complaint being filed by the Enforcement Directorate “only through media reports”.

“There is no official communication from the Enforcement Directorate or the Hon’ble Court. My client has not received any copy of the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate,” stated Patil, adding, “Jacqueline has always cooperated with the investigation agencies and attended all the summons issued till date. She has handed over all the information to the best of her ability to the ED. The agencies have failed to appreciate that she was cheated and conned into this matter. She is a victim of larger criminal conspiracy. (sic)”

Patil continued, “Taking the entire prosecution case to be true for the sake of arguments, even then, no case is made out against Jacqueline under the scheme of Prevention of Money Laundering Act or any other Law in force. This is a case of malafide prosecution and my client shall take steps as required under law to protect her dignity and liberty.”

The ED in April provisionally attached assets worth Rs. 7.27 crores of the actress under the PMLA apart from Rs. 15 lakh cash, calling the funds as “proceeds of crime”. “Sukesh Chandrasekhar had given various gifts worth Rs. 5.71 crores to Jacqueline Fernandez from the proceeds of crime generated by criminal activities, including extortion,” stated the agency.

While Fernandez didn’t directly comment on the case, she re-shared an anonymous motivational quote on her Instagram stories. “Dear me, I deserve all good things, I’m powerful, I accept myself. It’ll all be ok. I’m strong, I’ll achieve my goals and dreams. I can do it (sic),” read the post. 

--------------------------------

Actor Jacqueline Fernandez’s lawyer Prashant Patil came to her defence on Thursday and claimed that the actor is a “victim of a larger conspiracy.” Patil’s statement came a day after Fernandez was named in a charge sheet by the Enforcement Directorate in a Rs. 200 crores money laundering case, linked to the conman Sukesh Chandrashekar.

“She has always cooperated with the investigation agencies and attended all the summons issued till date. She has handed over all the information to the best of her ability to the ED. The agencies have failed to appreciate that she was cheated and conned into this matter. She is a victim of a larger criminal conspiracy,” he said.

Patil told a leading news portal that they will be moving to the Patiala court to ask for a copy of the charge sheet filed by ED. Patil said, “We will apply for a certified copy of the complaint filed by the ED. It’s the right of the accused, so we are hopeful to get it.”

Earlier, Fernandez had shared on her Instagram story: “Dear me, I deserve all good things, I’m powerful, I accept myself, it’ll all be okay. I’m strong, I will achieve my goals and dreams, I can do it.”

Mumbai: Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty and her businessman-husband Raj Kundra on Tuesday sent a legal notice to actress Sherlyn Chopra seeking Rs. 50 crore in damages for ruining their reputation by making “false and baseless” allegations against them. The notice, sent through their advocate Prashant Patil, also sought an unconditional public apology from Chopra in newspapers and on digital media platforms within seven days, failing which it warned of civil and criminal proceedings against her.

Both Kundra and Chopra are accused in a pornographic content case. Last month, he was granted bail by a Mumbai court after two months in jail. Last week, Chopra had filed a complaint at Juhu police station against Shetty and Kundra accusing them of committing fraud against her. She had also alleged harassment, cheating and criminal intimidation.

The notice said Chopra’s allegations are an “afterthought” as she is also an accused in the case. Shetty is no way connected or involved in the daily affairs of the Kundra-promoted JL Stream app, it said.

-----------------------

Days after actor Shilpa Shetty Kundra and businessman Raj Kundra’s lawyers warned actor Sherlyn Chopra of a defamation case, they’ve gone ahead with the suit. Chopra had filed a complaint against the couple for allegedly committing fraud against her and for mental harassment. Now, the couple has hit back with a defamation suit of Rs. 50 crore against her.

In a notice sent to Chopra by the couple, they claim that “entire allegations” made by Chopra are “concocted, false, fake, frivolous, baseless, without any evidence”.

It adds that they have been made with an “ulterior motive to defame and extort money”.

Furthermore, it says, “That, Ms Shilpa Shetty is not at all involved in any of the working affairs of the JL Stream App. It is nothing but an audacious attempt, by Ms Sherlyn to drag Ms Shilpa Shetty’s name to create unwanted controversy and gain media attention... we have complete faith in the Indian Judiciary, and we would be initiating civil/criminal proceedings against Ms Sherlyn Chopra... (sic)”

On October 14, Chopra, after filing the complaint, had also announced that she would reveal details about her allegations in a press conference. Replying to that, the couple’s lawyers sent a warning, saying, “Calling for a press conference to do this reflects a strong intention to commit an offence of defamation. Anything spoken by Miss Chopra in the public domain shall be held against her in the court of law...”

Mumbai: Going by the statements of witnesses, the element of inducement, which is a prime ingredient of cheating, appears to be missing from the prosecution’s case, a magistrate’s court said while granting bail to businessman Raj Kundra on Monday in the pornography case.

Kundra and Ryan Thorpe, the IT head of his company, who were both arrested on July 19, walked out of Arthur Road jail on Tuesday afternoon after the formalities. The detailed four-page order was made available on Tuesday. Additional chief metropolitan magistrate S B Bhajipale noted that all servers, laptops and mobile phones of the accused were in custody of the police and, hence, there was no possibility of tampering with evidence. “At present, all the accused are released on bail. In such circumstances, only on the grounds that further investigation is going on, the accused cannot be kept behind bars till conclusion of trial,” he added. The prosecution had opposed the bail pleas of Kundra and Thorpe.

------------------------

Mumbai: Granting bail to businessman Raj Kundra, a magistrate’s court said the trial is likely to take its own time. “In such circumstances, it will not be proper to keep the accused in custody when they are ready to furnish surety for their appearance and to abide by conditions set by the court,” it added.

The court said 64 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and the chargesheet runs into 4,000-plus pages. Moreover, none of the offences attract a sentence of more than seven years’ imprisonment. “The report of the cyber expert is still awaited. At present, investigation is completed as the chargesheet was filed on September 15,” said the court, pointing out the SC has held that the accused cannot be kept behind bars even for an inconsiderable period when investigations are completed.

Advocates Swapnil Ambure and Prashant Patil had argued that Kundra and his associate Ryan Thorpe were not related to uploading of the allegedly questionable content. “There is not a single allegation in the supplementary chargesheet against the applicant (Kundra) that he was actively involved in any video shooting. In fact, it is the sole discretion of the individual artistes to upload content on the app,” the bail plea said.

The defence said the case of the prosecution is not that there are victims who were coerced or threatened by Kundra. “None of the artistes ever raised any grievance or any alarm with regards to the so-called alleged filming and broadcasting of erotic content. By their own admission, their dispute is in respect of sharing of financial gains and consequential contractual obligation,” the bail plea had said.

The court noted there is a statement in the chargesheet about transactions. “However, from the statement, it can only be gathered that transactions took place between Kenrin and Hotshots and out of said transactions, there was an exchange of amounts. However, exchange of amounts is not an offence levelled against the accused in the chargesheet,” said the court.

The chargesheet said Kundra had set up Hotshots, an online platform, with the intention of distributing pornographic material. Victims were cheated by being told that they were going to be given roles in web series, short films and television serials. A forensic audit also revealed money laundering of the Hotspots revenues. The funds were diverted using Google and Apple apps to UK company Kenrin’s account in Lloyds Bank even before the app’s sale by Armsprime Media Pvt Ltd. Police suspect Kundra has a stake in the production company Kenrin and was involved in production and distribution of pornography material.

Kundra and Thorpe have been told not to leave the country.

------------------------

Mumbai: Businessman Raj Kundra had 119 adult/porn videos which he wanted to sell to UK-based JL Stream, said the police.

The claim is part of Mumbai police’s supplementary chargesheet, naming him as a key accused in an alleged pornography racket.

The police said they couldn’t find any video contents from Kundra’s mobile phone but the forensic cyber expert’s report says there are digital footprints of video clips. Annexed to the chargesheet are emails and WhatsApp chat between Kundra, his brother-in-law Pradeep Bakshi and one Monika from JL Stream discussing the sale of the porn clips. The police retrieved the chat from Kundra’s phone, in which there is a screenshot sent to him by Bakshi discussing the sale.

“Dear Monika, sharing the 119 movie list, this has cost me over $1.2 million to produce, giving them all to JL Stream in perpetual ownership. I would need part cash and part equity as discussed. The $75million valuation does not work for me… I am willing to agree on 2% in shares of JL Stream Singapore pvt ltd and $100k in transfer,” says Bakshi’s mail. Monika replies: “I have spoken to the board and the interest is there… to acquire your content bank in exchange for part cash part equity in JL Stream.”

------------------------

Raj Kundra, who was granted bail on Monday in a case related to creating and streaming pornographic content, was seen leaving the Arthur Road jail around 11.30 am yesterday. He was later seen arriving at his Juhu home. A magistrate court in Mumbai granted bail to the businessman, a key accused in the case, for which he was arrested in July. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate SB Bhajipale allowed Kundra’s bail application on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000. His associate and co-accused Ryan Thorpe, who was arrested along with him on July 19, was also granted bail by the court in the case pertaining to the alleged creation of pornographic films and publishing them through some apps. The 46-year-old businessman and husband of actress Shilpa Shetty Kundra, was lodged in Arthur Road Jail in central Mumbai under judicial custody.

Raj Kundra was arrested by the Mumbai Police’s Crime Branch after being booked under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Act and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. He moved a bail plea before the metropolitan magistrate court after the police filed a supplementary charge sheet in the case.

In the plea, filed through advocate Prashant Patil, Kundra claimed there was no evidence with the prosecution that would connect the app Hotshots, used in the alleged porn films racket, with an offence under the law. As per the probe agency, the app was used by accused persons to upload and stream obscene content. The businessman claimed there was no evidence of him being “actively” involved in the creation of alleged questionable porn content. Kundra alleged he has been falsely implicated, was not even named in the FIR and has been dragged by the respondent (police) in the case. The businessman claimed in the plea that he is being made a “scapegoat”.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bhajipale, after hearing both sides, allowed Kundra’s application on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 50,000. In their supplementary charge sheet, the police had claimed Kundra was the “main facilitator” in the case, and he, along with other accused, exploited young women struggling in the movie industry by filming them in obscene ways. The Crime Branch filed the nearly 1,500-page charge sheet against Kundra and Thorpe in the court on September 15. Besides Kundra and Thorpe, Yash Thakur, a resident of Singapore, and London-based Pardeep Bakshi have been shown as wanted accused in the charge sheet.

— Agencies

------------------------

A few hours after Raj was granted bail, Shilpa shared a quote by Chinese-American modernist architect Roger Lee. “Rainbows exist to prove that beautiful things can happen after a bad storm,” she wrote.

Earlier, in her statement to the police, Shilpa had claimed she was not aware of her husband Raj Kundra’s activities as she was busy with her work.

Raj Kundra on Saturday moved a bail application in a Mumbai court, claiming that he was being made a “scapegoat” in a pornography films case. The businessman claimed that there was “not a single evidence” against him in the supplementary chargesheet, filed by the crime branch, that proved he was actively involved in the creation of the alleged questionable content.

Kundra – who along with three others has been accused of creating pornographic films and publishing them through some apps – approached the metropolitan court for bail, saying that the investigation in the case was “practically over”. He was arrested on July 19 after being booked under relevant sections of the IPC and the Information Technology Act and is currently in judicial custody.

In the application for bail, filed through advocate Prashant Patil, Kundra claimed that there is not “a single iota of evidence” till date with the prosecution that would connect the app HotShots with an offence under law. As per the probe agency, the HotShots app was used by the accused for uploading and streaming obscene content. The bail plea also said that there is “not a single allegation in the entire supplementary charge sheet” against the present applicant (Kundra) that he was actively involved in any of the video shootings. The application claims that it is “a sole discretion” of the individual artists to upload their contents on the app.

The contents of the complaint do not disclose any prima-facie offence against Kundra, the application added.

It further claimed that Kundra was falsely implicated in the case, that he was not named in the FIR and that he has “been dragged by” the respondent (police) into the case, it added, further stating that he was being made a “scapegoat”, for reasons “best known to” the investigating agencies. It stated that the investigation so far “clearly shows that Kundra was not involved in any offence even in a remotest way” or in creating the alleged “questionable content”. Further, the plea claimed, he is “not even related to the process of uploading or broadcasting of the alleged questionable content”.

The bail application is likely to come up for hearing on Monday.

-------------------

Shilpa Shetty Kundra uploaded a page from a novel on her Instagram story, leaving followers wondering what it meant. It is the second such post by the actress after the arrest of her husband Raj Kundra in a porn-related case. The post, uploaded on Saturday on her Stories, had a quote from author Carl Bard. It read: “Though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending”. The page ended with two lines: “I don’t have to be defined by things I’ve done in the past. I can make the future what I want it to be”.

As a supplementary chargesheet was filed against Raj recently, Shilpa had gone to Vaishno Devi. Earlier, in August, Shilpa had posted a quote from author Sophia Loren, which read: “Mistakes are part of dues one makes for a full life”.

Mumbai: A special court on Thursday rejected a plea by the CBI, seeking to further probe the suicide case of actor Jiah Khan.

In a plea to the court conducting the trial under charges of abetment of suicide against actor Sooraj Pancholi, CBI had said it wanted to send a dupatta used in the suicide for analysis to the forensic laboratory in Chandigarh. On June 3, 2013, Jiah was found hanging at her Juhu flat, after which Pancholi was arrested and charged with abetment. He was later released on bail.

The CBI’s plea also sought permission to send phones of Jiah and Sooraj to forensic unit, FBI, US, to recover the messages. The court also rejected a plea by Khan’s mother, Rabiya, who had pointed out to “defects” in the earlier investigation.

In 2019, the CBI had first moved the plea. Sooraj’s lawyer, Prashant Patil, had then sought its dismissal. The defence reply said that CBI’s plea was in direct contempt of a 2017 Bombay High Court (HC) order. It said Jiah’s mother had moved a plea in HC, making a similar plea, which was rejected in 2017. The reply stated that in an affidavit filed by CBI in response to Rabiya’s plea, the investigating officer had submitted that messages by the accused and Jiah were related to his meeting with a jewellery designer at a hotel and not connected to the incident. It said the plea was contradictory to CBI’s earlier stand.

---------------------------

Mumbai: In a detailed order refusing to grant CBI and Jiah Khan’s mother’s pleas for a further probe into her alleged suicide, a special court said relief claimed was nothing but a replica of earlier pleas on issues already decided by Bombay High Court, indicating that applications before it were a clear abuse of the process of law.

“Instead of the clear position... these applications filed, which indicate that the complainant (Jiah’s mother Rabiya) does not want to proceed further with trial, conduct appears deliberate and intentional to delay and procrastinate the trial. The alleged FIR registered in 2013 and since around eight years it awaits effective trial. Applications present before this court are not maintainable, but it is clearly an abuse of process of law,” special judge A S Sayyad said.

In a 2019 plea to the court conducting the trial under charges of abetment of suicide against actor Sooraj Pancholi, CBI said it wanted to send a ‘dupatta’ used in the suicide for analysis to the forensic laboratory in Chandigarh. On June 3, 2013, Jiah was found hanging at her Juhu flat, after which Pancholi was arrested and charged with abetment. He was later released on bail.

CBI’s plea sought permission to send phones of Jiah and Pancholi to the forensic unit, FBI, US, to recover messages. Rabiya, who pointed out “defects” in the earlier probe, sought further investigation into cause of death by formulating a Special Investigation Team (SIT) presided over by CBI’s director or joint director.

In July 2014, following an HC order, investigations were transferred from Mumbai Police to CBI. Rabiya had moved the HC after being unsatisfied by police investigations and claiming that the death was a murder. The HC ordered CBI to conduct further investigations. CBI concluded it was a suicide, and in December 2015, a chargesheet was submitted against Pancholi for abetting Jiah’s suicide.

Pancholi’s lawyer Prashant Patil opposed the pleas and submitted relief sought by CBI and Rabiya was decided “six times” by courts. The defence replied that CBI’s plea was in direct contempt of a 2017 HC order. It said Jiah’s mother had moved a plea in HC, making a similar plea, rejected in 2017. The reply said that in an affidavit filed by CBI in response to Rabiya’s plea, the investigating officer submitted that messages by the accused and Jiah were related to his meeting with a jewellery designer at a hotel, and not connected to the incident. It said the plea was contradictory to CBI’s earlier stand.

Sooraj Pancholi's family -dad Aditya, mom Zarina Wahab and sister Sana - on Wednesday moved the Bombay High Court against Rabia Khan, late actress Jiah Khan's mother. The Pancholis filed a Contempt petition, seeking to restrain Rabia from mak ing defamatory remarks against them on social and other mass media. BT is in possession of a copy of the said petition.

The matter was up for hearing on Thursday (December 22), but couldn't be heard during the business hours. It's expected to be taken up when the court reopens after the Christmas and New Year holidays.

Advocate Prashant Patil, who represents the Pancholis, says, “The Rs 100-crore defamation suit was filed a couple of years ago. Rabia had given her word to the court, through her counsel, that she will not use any defamatory language on any social media or print media platforms and hence, the notice of motion was disposed off in favour of the Pancholis. But her interviews and tweets haven't quite stopped. In fact, they were found to be quite defamatory, which compelled the Pancholis to file a Contempt of Court petition a few weeks ago. Looking at the sensitivity of the matter, we were provided a production date when we asked for it on Wednesday (December 21, 2016). The proceedings couldn't happen on Thursday, but will happen as soon as the court reopens in January 2017. We are seeking relief against her. Rabia must publicly apologise for this, if found guilty by the court. Our stand is simple: whatever the verdict in the entire matter, one must have faith in the law. No one has the right to defame the other. Unlawful language is not permissible, whatever the merits of the case.“

On the other hand, Advocate Swapnil Ambure, Rabia's lawyer, says, “There is no substance in their (Pancholis') petition. The lady has only been seeking fair investigation in the matter. And, they have not been able to show what the defamatory material is. As per us, this is nothing but a way of deviating from the main matter.“

Jiah was found hanging in her Mumbai home on June 3, 2013. In December 2015, the CBI had charged Sooraj with abetting Jiah's suicide.

On Monday, the Bombay High Court stayed the Sessions Court's trial in the Jiah Khan death case. The complainant, Rabya Khan (the actress' mother), had apparently filed a plea to transfer the case to a fresh bench. Another new development on the case was that the prosecution has appointed a new lawyer, Dhairyasheel Patil, who demanded three weeks to study the matter in detail. The division bench comprising Justice NH Patil and Justice PD Naik adjourned Rabya's petition but maintained that it is the last adjournment in the matter as the Supreme Court has directed the case to be expedited. The bench also added, “The interim relief granted in the petition by way of stay on the trial in the lower court is extended for a period of three weeks.“ The actress committed suicide on June 10 in her Juhu apartment, following which her mother alleged that her then boyfriend, Bollywood actor Sooraj Pancholi, was responsible for abetment. When we contacted Sooraj's lawyer Prashant Patil, he said, “The frequent adjournments are a way of killing time for my client. We cannot take a stand on the HC order because it doesn't involve us. It is unfortunate because my client has a right to a free and fair trial. And every time there is a delay, he suffers the most. The final charges are yet to be framed in this case. Whatever section they want to try him under, be it 302 (murder) or 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, it needs to be done. Sooraj is present for each and every hearing but we continue to bear the brunt of the other party's procrastination.“

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has opposed the adjournment as well. Rabya had sought a probe by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) alleging that the CBI had not been thorough with their investigation and their findings aren't in sync with that of the Mumbai Police which claimed Jiah's death was a suicide and not homicide. The HC has admitted the plea for SIT.

When we reached out to Rabiya (who is currently in London), she told us, “There is no relief either way. What I want is a fair hearing.“

On Friday, the special women's court granted permission to Sooraj Pancholi so that he can travel abroad for professional commitments between June 20 and July 1. This is the second time the actor will be travelling overseas after being booked in the Jiah Khan death case since June 2013. Sooraj's lawyer, Prashant Patil told BT, “We are glad that the court did not hesitate in considering my client's application. There was a hearing on Friday and we procured all the necessary permissions.“ A source close to the actor adds that he will be travelling to Spain for a show where he will perform.

On May 5, additional public prosecutor Kalpana Hire had pressed charges under three sections - 302 (murder), 313 (causing miscarriage without woman's consent) and 376 (rape). The matter was adjourned by the court till June 10, but it was pushed even further. For Pancholi, the next crucial day is July 8, when his lawyer will argue to discharge the matter. The additional evidence about Jiah's past history and Mr Bloom's testament (as reported by BT on June 6) could be brought up in Court during the next hearing. To quickly recap, Bloom - a London citizen - wrote to the Mumbai Police informing them of how even in the past Jiah's mother had filed a false case of sexual assault against his son.

In a week another important matter on the case is up for hearing in the High Court. Jiah's mother Rabiya Khan had sought FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) intervention in the matter after she was unhappy with CBI's (Central Bureau of Investigation) investigation. On June 15 it will be decided whether the FBI will really probe in to this case.

As a sense of deep sadness ran through her close friends and fami ly on the eve of her third death anniversary (June 3), Jiah Khan's exboyfriend Sooraj Pancholi continues to fight for his innocence. 10 days ago, he wrote a letter to the Juhu Police Station, CBI and the Mumbai Police Commissioner intimating them of the new evidence that they have laid their hands on. We are told that a few weeks ago, they found out that a London-based business tycoon, D Bloom had written to the Mumbai Police in February 2015 stating that his son faced similar accusations in 2001 by the Khans. At that time, the deceased was 14 and her mother had filed a complaint against the tycoon's son for sexually assaulting Jiah. The trial court in London later acquitted him on the basis of substantial evidence that stated they were in a romantic relationship and whatever transpired between them was consensual. During the trial, the London police documented evidence that Jiah had attempted suicide by slitting her wrist. We reached out to Sooraj, but he declined to comment as the matter is subjudice. However, his lawyer Prashant Patil spoke to us about the new twist in the tale. “Jiah's history is of no relevance to us otherwise. But here, we are citing instances from her past to reveal some vital information that was hidden by the complainant (Rabiya Khan). In 11 Supreme Court and two Bombay High Court judgements, it was noted that if a suicide victim suffers from any hypersensitive tendency, it needs to be brought to the Court's notice. In three years she has never in a single statement said that Jiah had attempted suicide thrice before. We have documented evidence of the same, which we will be producing before the Court. We have never intervened during the investigation and done our best to be supportive and let law take its course. But for a fair trial, the whole truth should be out. We object to the fact that Rabiya did not come clean on her side of the story,“ he says.

From the first day itself, this case has been a bundle of contradictions. The first charge that Rabiya called for was under section 306 (abetment of suicide) based on the suicide letter of the deceased. But she quickly changed her stance and alleged that a case needs to be filed under section 302 (punishment for murder). Refraining to comment on the anomalies, Patil simply states, “We will be filing the complete transcripts of the London case and Mr D Bloom is willing to personally come down and record his statement with the Mumbai police. It was in February 2015 that he had written a mail to the Mumbai Police with information about Jiah's background that could prove to be strong evidence in this case. All along Rabiya has said how the deceased had a strong support system in her family. Bloom claims that Rabiya would frequently leave Jiah and her younger sister Kavita in London and stay away from home for days at stretch, leaving the kids to fend for themselves. In fact, transcripts also reveal that when Jiah was a minor, she had undergone an abortion. These are details documented in the transcripts that are in his possession. It is unfortunate that the Mumbai Police ignored that mail in 2015.“ BT is in possession of Bloom's documents that will be produced before the court during the next hearing.

Suppressing information could amount to Rabiya facing perjury charges but the kind of allegations levied against her and Jiah could also make a potent case of defamation against the dead. To this, Patil reacts strongly by saying, “We are not trying to defame the dead. Under the Evidence Act, we have every right to file additional evidence that could give some context to the case. We don't want trial by media. It is eventually up to the court to decide whether the information is of any relevance here. It was only when rape charges were levied against Sooraj by the prosecution that we were compelled to explore more. Why is a charge this gruesome being made without any substantial evidence? Her letters have been read and interpreted multiple times before, then why is this charge coming three years too late? We only believe that truth must prevail and justice be delivered, without vendetta colouring anyone's perception. If Sooraj has committed a heinous crime, he will be convicted. If not, he will walk out a free man. The crux of the matter now is that the victim had a suicidal pattern, she was undergoing therapy for depression and she had tried to commit suicide many times before she actually did.“

We contacted Rabiya for her version as well and she told us, “This is absolutely ridiculous. The defence is trying to destroy the actual case. All these allegations are baseless. It is being done only to distract the High Court. I am seriously contemplating legal action against the people responsible. Besides this, I have no other comment to make.“

The Sessions Court on Thursday heard the Jiah Khan death case after the Bombay High Court lifted the stay on the trial against actor Sooraj Pancholi on May 2, 2016. The actress had allegedly committed suicide in her Juhu apartment on June 3, 2013, following which her mother Rabiya Khan pressed murder charges against her daughter's then boyfriend Sooraj.

The actor was present for the hearing along with his lawyer Prashant Patil. Justice Anju Shende, who was hearing the case, questioned advocate Swapnil Ambure (Rabiya's legal representative) about how his client had time to give interviews in the media but couldn't come to the court and conduct the matter. The request to adjourn the matter was rejected on these grounds.

Shende also rejected the CBI's request to conduct the prosecution as the court has already decided that the trial will be conducted by the State as the first charge sheet was filed by them. The judge also questioned the absence of Special Public Prosecutor Dinesh Tiwari.

When BT contacted Rabiya, who is currently in London, she said in a text message, “I am really disappointed that the Sessions Court has rejected my application to adjourn the matter. In the last hearing which took place in February this year, I had requested for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into the matter. The High Court questioned me saying that as I wasn't content with the CBI's probe or with the State Police's investigation, there is no guarantee that I would be satisfied with the SIT's findings either.“

On being asked whether she will be present for the next hearing on June 7, she said, “I am not keeping well and it costs a lot of money to arrange the travel. It has been three years since I have been fighting this case. God knows that the man is evil and he will be punished in due time. He is strong and powerful but that will last only a short while. I believe justice will be served.“

At the time of going to press, the Sessions Court was yet to frame charges against Sooraj.

On Monday, the Bombay High Court lifted the stay on the trial against Bollywood actor Sooraj Pancholi in the Jiah Khan alleged suicide case. As a result, over the next few weeks, more details of the case might unfold as the interrogation begins. The next hearing of the case will be held on May 5, which will take place at a special women's court where apparently charges will be framed against Sooraj. It might be recalled that Jiah committed suicide on June 3, 2013 at her Juhu apartment.

Welcoming the HC's move, Sooraj's father Aditya Pancholi says, “It is a rare case where the accused is asking to speed up the matter. We are happy that the case will now take its due course. Sooraj will be present for the next hearing.“

In February this year, Jiah's mother Rabia Khan had filed a fresh petition with the HC against the CBI report by pointing out anomalies that categorised her daughter's death as a suicide and not a homicide. Public prosecutor Dinesh Tiwari says, “One of the points that was raised by Rabia Khan was that the CBI did not have any answers to the forensic evidence that they provided. The ligature mark around Jiah's neck did not support the theory of suicide.“

Tiwari adds, “Also, they never explained the injury marks that were found on Jiah's body. By the last hearing which was held on May 2, CBI had not filed the charge sheet. We want to know what is taking them three months. Since it did not come through the division bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice A M Badar, they decided to defer it to May 5. The stay, however, is not vacated yet because even the bench feels that there is some substance to the allegations.“

In the petition, the mother sought for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the HC's mentorship.She also urged the court to request for FBI's assistance since Jiah was a US citizen. This is one of the prime points that the court will decide in the next hearing, informs Tiwari.

Sooraj's lawyer, Prashant Patil, adds, “We had always requested the trial court to expedite the hearing and if possible even have a daily hearing. Time and again we have asked the prosecutor to open the case against us and frame the charges if there are any. They have just been coming up with allegations without providing any kind of evidence.“ However, prosecutor Tiwari questions the excitement of the accused's party. “Have you ever seen any accused being happy to rush into the case? In a normal situation the accused will first apply for discharge rather than asking for expeditious hearing. They are welcoming the move because they are happy being charged under section 306 which is abetment of suicide as the maximum punishment if proved guilty is 10 years to avert being charged under section 302 (murder) for which the punishment is life imprisonment,“ he says.

We tried to reach out to Rabia, who is out of country, but she remained unavailable for comment till the time of going to press.