A Mumbai Sessions court on Saturday reserved its ruling in the bail applications of Independent MP from Amravati Naveent Rana and her MLA-husband Ravi Rana in the case involving their arrest over threat to recite “Hanuman Chalisa” in front of chief minister Uddhav Thackeray’s private residence “Matoshri” at Bandra in north-west Mumbai. After hearing Senior Advocate Abad Ponda and Advocate Rizwan Merchant—representing Navneet and Ravi Rana and Special Police Prosecutor Pradip Gharat, Special Judge RN Rokade reserved his ruling on the bail applications of the Rana couple for Monday.
Ranas were arrested on April 23 for offences registered initially against them under sections 153A (causing enmity between different groups), 34 (common intention) and later under section 124A (sedition) of IPC for for challenging the government machinery and making remarks against Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray in a controversy arising out of their threat to recite “Hanuman Chalisa” in front of Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray’s Bandra residence. They were also booked under provisions of the Bombay Police Act for causing a law and order situation in the city.
Maintaining that there was nothing wrong in the state government allowing Ranas from reciting “Hanuman Chalisa” in front of the chief minister’s residence, senior Advocate Ponda argued: "What is sort to be punished is an idea. It is connected with someone's religious beliefs. If there was an idea about slaughtering an animal outside someone's house then it cannot be allowed. But where everyone is Hindu here and someone just wants to recite.."Ponda told the court that while the principle of democracy is to encourage dissent but then in the same breath dissenting voices were being discouraged. Making a strong case for release of Ranas on bail, Ponda argued the Mumbai Police had neither bothered to take custody of the Rana couple nor did they interrogate them even for a single day during their judicial custody.
Ponda said that while reciting Hanuman Chalisa outside a mosque would have different repercussions, “but it is not that case here, because CM himself is a staunch Hindu".Ponda contended that that the Rana couple had not criticised the Muslim community by using loudspeakers nor were intending to use loudspeakers for the recitation.The defence lawyer said that while the state government had invoked sedition charge against Ranas, its supporters had raised issues about the decision.Ponda pointed out that since the police sent notice to Ranas not to recite Hanuman Chalisa, they could not go ahead with their plans and that being the case, the offence did not amount to sedition.