
Sonakshi Sinha has approached the Mumbai Police after her false obscene images were circulated on social media. The actor sought action against the person behind the photographs. The report led the police to a guy in Delhi but the case took a surprising turn when he was shown before a court in Mumbai.
Sonakshi reportedly went to the Bandra police station to file a complaint, said India Today. She said that a guy from Delhi was circulating her modified nude photos on social media. The culprit has been identified by the police as Aryan Deepak Jain. On Saturday morning, he was picked up from the Jagatpuri police station area in Delhi’s Shahdara and taken to Mumbai.
Mumbai Police then produced him before a Bandra court and sought his detention for three days. They told the court that they intended to trace the electronic gadget, allegedly used to create the fraudulent photographs of Sonakshi. However, the judge did not allow the police request. Instead, it ordered his release, ruling that the police had not followed due legal procedure when detaining Jain and transporting him to Mumbai.
Jain’s attorneys challenged the police detention request throughout the hearing. They stated police had not given him the requisite notice or explained properly why he was being detained.The attorneys also pointed out that Jain was hauled to Mumbai from Delhi without being shown before the local magistrate in Delhi.
The defense also contended that the cops hurried as the allegation was about a celebrity. Jain also informed the court that he had done nothing wrong and accusations against him did not pertain to the claims.
The magistrate observed that Jain was taken immediately to the Bandra court and not produced before a magistrate in Delhi.
“Thus it appears that the police have directly brought the accused from Delhi before this Court without following the procedure of production before the nearest Magistrate, observed the Court.
The court also ruled the police had failed to present a reasonable explanation for not taking necessary procedures. The magistrate further observed that the offences in the case carry a potential prison term of seven years. Wanting to examine a matter further was not a grounds to arrest someone or detain them in jail without respecting the law, the court said.