Hanuman Chalisa row: HC dismisses Ranas’ petition for relief; MP writes to LS Speaker

The petition filed by the Ranas questioned the second complaint against them at the Khar police station for “threatening and resisting police officials” when they went to arrest them at their residence on Saturday.

People in public life are expected to act responsibly, the Bombay high court observed on Monday as it dismissed a petition by the arrested lawmaker couple, Amravati parliamentarian Navneet Kaur Rana and her MLA husband Ravi Rana, even as the MP wrote to Lok Sabha speaker, claiming that her arrest was illegal.

MP Navneet Rana at Santacruz Station, after she along with her husband Ravi Rana were arrested for promoting enmity between different groups on Saturday. (PTI)

The petition filed by the Ranas questioned the second complaint against them at the Khar police station for “threatening and resisting police officials” when they went to arrest them at their residence on Saturday.

A division bench of justices Prasanna Varale and SM Modak directed Khar police to issue the independent legislators advance notice of at least 72 hours before arresting them in connection with the second FIR under Section 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from performing his duty) of the Indian Penal Code.

The court disapproved the Rana couple’s intention to chant the Hanuman Chalisa outside the chief minister’s residence.

“The petitioner has disclosed that they could recite religious verses outside the house of another person,” said the bench. “Such type of a declaration is certainly in breach of the personal liberty of the other person and therefore the state is justified in carrying apprehension that such act will lead to disturbance in law and order situation.”

Since the petitioners claim to be actively involved in public and political life, they are expected to act more responsibly, the court said. “With great power comes great responsibility,” said the bench.

“The two FIR’s are registered for two different set of incidents and does not require indulgence of this court,” the judges said. “However, if the state wants to make any arrest, they should give 72 hour’s notice to the petitioners.”

Khar police had on Saturday also registered an offence against the Rana couple for promoting enmity between two groups and added the charge of sedition against them after they declared their intention to chant the Hanuman Chalisa outside Matoshree, the private residence of chief minister Uddhav Thackeray, and came all the way to Mumbai for allegedly trying to create a law and order situation.

The couple, presently in judicial custody on the first FIR, on Monday moved court, questioning the registration of the second FIR. Navneet Kaur Rana is detained at Byculla jail, while Ravi Rana is lodged at Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai.

Their counsel, advocate Rizwan Merchant, submitted that the second FIR related to the same series of events that had taken place on Friday and Saturday, and therefore no separate FIR was necessary.

“The same section could have easily been added in the first FIR for which the duo has already been arrested. They have already added section 124A of IPC (sedition) charge later in the FIR. They could have done it similarly,” the lawyer said.

He informed the court that cases are registered against the Ranas also in Amravati, Pune and Osmanabad. Once they get bail in the first Khar FIR, they will again be arrested on other FIRs, including the second one.

“The present case is a strategic and tactical FIR with the sole purpose of pressurizing the petitioners as a result of a vengeful political vendetta,” Merchant argued.

Special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat opposed the petition by contending that the two FIRs cover two different incidents. The people’s representatives had refused to cooperate with police, and instead threatened them, Gharat pointed out.

Police added sedition charge in the first FIR as the motive was not simply to recite the Hanuman Chalisa, but to create a law and order situation, Gharat said. They wanted to challenge the state machinery, especially the chief minister.

The court found substance in the prosecutor’s argument and took serious note of the intentions expressed by the Ranas.