[Hanuman Chalisa row] Mumbai Court reserves verdict in bail plea by Navneet Rana, Ravi Rana in sedition FIR case

The Mumbai Sessions Court on Saturday reserved its verdict in the bail pleas filed by Member of Parliament Naveent Rana, and her husband and Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Ravi Rana, seeking bail in the sedition case registered against them.The verdict will be pronounced on May 2. .The couple was initially booked under Sections 153A (causing enmity between different groups), Section 34 (common intention) and later on booked under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for challenging government machinery and making remarks against the Chief Minister.They were remanded to 14-day judicial custody on Sunday, April 24 by a Special Metropolitan Magistrate for MPs and MLAs at Sewree, Mumbai.Senior Advocate Abad Ponda argued that this was not a case of wrongful loss. "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 argued. Ponda pointed out that while the principle of democracy is to encourage dissent but then in the same breath dissenting voices are being discouraged. His contention was that the Mumbai Police had neither bothered to take custody of the couple nor interrogated them for a single day during their judicial custody. The State felt there was a law and order problem and did not charge sedition because even police did not believe that there can be sedition, Ponda argued. "Reading Hanuman Chalisa outside mosque will have different repercussions. But here it is not that case. The CM himself is a staunch Hindu," Ponda argued. He added that the couple had not criticized the Muslim community by using loudspeakers, nor were they using loudspeakers for the recitation.He argued that while it was government who slapped sedition charges, it was the supporters of the government who had created the uproar."Hanuman Chalisa was read on London bridge, people are peacefully reading it. But in your own place you cannot recite it," Ponda submitted adding that the CM's personal house was not a government establishmentHe further pointed out that once the police sent notice not to conduct the recitation, the plan did not fructify and hence it did not amount to sedition. He emphasized that citizens have a right to criticise the government as long as it does not incite violence.Invoking sedition requires legal opinion from the State government but the the same has also not been shown by the State."Any comment against Uddhav Thackeray or Shiv Sena is not against the government, as this party is one of the three of the coalition government" Ponda concluded. .Special Police Prosecutor Pradip Gharat stated that the place in question where the recitation was to happen belonged to the Chief Minister of the State. He added that while citizens have the right to criticize the government, the same has to be done within a limit, and if that limit is crossed, it will fall under the ambit of Section 124A of IPC.Gharat contended that 'Hinduism' has become a keyword in India and is used as political card to bring down present Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government in Maharashtra."Hinduism is such a card that if it is used then the government of Maharashtra can be trapped. The government is not pursuing the cause of a single religion", Gharat argued. "The opposition just wants to show that in the present government, Shiv Sena has changed its stand toward hinduism, so if that is shown then it will collapse", it was added. .Hanuman Chalisa row was ploy to get Governor to dissolve MVA govt on law and order ground: Mumbai Police oppose Ranas' bail plea.Gharat added that use of the word 'hijra' to describe the Thackeray and members of Shiv Sena crossed a limit of freedom of expression. "There is clear cut material to show that they wanted to distribute public order and so Section 124A is made out," Gharat concluded.He added that there were collectively over 20 cases against the two legislators which showed their antecedents. Seeking for rejection of the application, he added that they were powerful people who could influence evidence and witnesses. .After hearing the bail arguments for over 2 hours, Special Court reserved its verdict.