Threatening to recite religious verses at another person's house, public place breaches personal liberty of others: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently observed that threatening to recite religious verses either at someone else's personal residence or at public places breaches the personal liberty of others [Navneet Rana vs State of Maharashtra].A Division Bench of Justices PB Varale and SM Modak made the observation while dismissing the plea filed by Member of Parliament Naveent Rana, and her husband and Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Ravi Rana, seeking to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against them under Section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the Indian Penal Code."We have perused the First Information Report it disclosed that the declaration of the petitioners that they would recite religious verses either in personal residence of another person or even at a public place is firstly, not only breaching the personal liberty of another person but also encroachment upon other person’s personal liberty and secondly, if a declaration is made with a particular religious verses would be recited on the public street, the State Government is justified in carrying an apprehension that such act would result in disturbance of law and order," the Court stated..The couple had approached the High Court contending that the case of assault of public servant was registered as a second FIR in connection with the incident and was meant to harass the petitioners and deny them bail.Earlier, an FIR for sedition had already been registered against them, it was pointed out.However, a bench of Justices PB Varale and SM Modak observed that that the two incidents (one leading to the case of sedition and other of assault) were separate and the petition deserves to be rejected."We come to the conclusion that the two incidents are separate and the present petition does not merit the court’s indulgence," the Court ordered..The Court also said that responsible behaviour is expected especially from those who are active in politics."The petitioners who claims to be active in their public and political life are expected to act with more responsible way. As it is oftenly said that “Great power comes with greater responsibility”. The expectation of responsible behaviour or responsible conduct from those person who are active in public life is cannot be an extra expectation but would be basic expectation," the order said..The case arose after Ravi Rana had demanded from the CM, who is also chief of ruling party Shiv Sena which is heading the State's coalition government, to recite the Hanuman Chalisa at his residence on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanti.He also warned that if the CM does not do so, he would go to Matoshree (Uddhav Thackeray's residence) to recite it.On April 23, he said he would go to Matoshree to recite, however the couple called off their plans later.The Mumbai police, however, arrested the two in the evening amidst protests by Shiv Sena members.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 the government machinery and making remarks against Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray.The couple were also booked under provisions of the Bombay Police Act for causing law and order situation in the city.They was remanded to 14-day judicial custody on Sunday by a Special Metropolitan Magistrate for MPs and MLAs at Sewree, Mumbai.Their bail application is slated to be heard on April 29, 2022.Meanwhile, a second FIR was filed against them, this time under Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the IPC.The present petition was against the second FIR.Read more here..[Read Order]

Threatening to recite religious verses at another person's house, public place breaches personal liberty of others: Bombay High Court

Related Stories