Bombay High Court quashes 2008 Beed stone pelting case against Raj Thackeray

The Bombay High Court recently quashed a criminal case against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) Chief Raj Thackeray in connection with a 2008 stone pelting incident in Maharashtra's Beed [Raj Thackeray v State of Maharashtra].The case was linked to an alleged attack on a State transport bus, which had its front glass damaged by stones, following a speech allegedly made by Thackeray that incited his followers to commit the act.A Bench at Aurangabad comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh ruled that Thackeray, who was not present at the scene, could not be held accountable for the acts committed by his followers. .The Bench noted that the prosecution’s case against Thackeray was limited to Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment), and the charge-sheet did not contain evidence of any specific directive from the MNS leader urging his followers to damage public property. "Actual mischief or damage to the public property cannot be on the basis of abetment because in the speech there could not have been a specific direction to the party workers or followers that they should go and cause damage to the public property," the Court concluded.Hence, it would be an abuse of process to force Thackeray to face trial under these circumstances, the Bench said in its order of March 21. .The case stemmed from an incident on October 22, 2008, when a State transport bus traveling from Parali to Gangakhed was allegedly attacked by a group of individuals who pelted stones at the bus, causing damage to its glass. The authorities claiming that the incident was a consequence of a provocative speech made by Raj Thackeray in which he had allegedly incited violence. The charges against Thackeray included Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 427 (mischief causing damage to property), 336 (endangering the personal safety of others), and 109 (abetment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, Thackeray was charged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act..Thackeray's counsel emphasized that he was not at the location and that there was no concrete evidence linking him to the attack. He further argued that the Thackeray had been unjustly charged based solely on the assumption that a speech made elsewhere had led to the stone pelting. He pointed out that Thackeray's previous discharge application had been rejected in 2017 but due to a miscommunication between Thackeray and his former counsel, he was unable to challenge the decision at that time.On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the application. It was argued that the same was filed after considerable delay and after the applicant had exhausted all legal avenues.The court ruled in favor of Thackeray, emphasizing that the case against him lacked substantial evidence..Senior Advocate Rajendra Shirodkar instructed by advocate AS Shejwal appeared for Raj Thackeray.Additional Public Prosecutor GA Kulkarni appeared for the State.Advocate NB Narwade appeared for the informant-bus driver..[Read Order]