Political angle behind sedition cost towards Rana couple, lawyer tells Mumbai court docket
5 min readBy PTI
MUMBAI: The sedition cost towards Independent Lok Sabha MP Navneet Rana and her MLA-husband Ravi Rana in Maharashtra was invoked resulting from “political upheaval”, their lawyer informed a particular court docket right here on Thursday whereas opposing a police plea in search of cancellation of their bail in a case associated to Hanuman Chalisa recitation.
Both the defence and prosecution accomplished their arguments on the plea on Thursday following which particular Judge R N Rokade posted the matter for order on August 22.
Opposing the bail cancellation plea, advocate Rizwan Mechant, showing for the Ranas, mentioned the Indian Penal Code (IPC) part 124A (sedition) was invoked towards the couple because of “political upheaval” between two teams.
But the Supreme Court has stayed each case underneath the sedition cost.
“So they (prosecution) cannot ask for a review of that order” All that continues to be now could be IPC part 153A (selling enmity), he mentioned.
On May 11, the apex court docket placed on maintain the colonial-era penal legislation on sedition until an “appropriate” authorities discussion board re-examines it and directed the Centre and states to not register any recent FIR invoking the offence.
In one of many instances registered by the Mumbai police, the Rana couple was booked underneath IPC sections 124A and in addition 153A (selling enmity between completely different teams on grounds of faith, race, native land, residence, language, and doing acts prejudicial to upkeep of concord).
The Ranas had been arrested by the police in Mumbai on April 23 after they introduced that they are going to recite the Hanuman Chalisa outdoors the then-Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s non-public residence ‘Matoshree’ in suburban Bandra, resulting in protests by Shiv Sena staff.
On May 5, Judge Rokade granted the Ranas bail with sure circumstances, one in every of which prevented the lawmaker-couple from Amravati from making any assertion associated to the case to the media.
A couple of days later the police approached the particular court docket in search of that the bail of Navneet Rana, the Lok Sabha MP from Amravati, and Ravi Rana, the Independent MLA from the identical district in japanese Maharashtra, be cancelled as that they had allegedly violated bail circumstances.
Referring to the media interplay the couple had after popping out of the jail, particular public prosecutor Pradip Gharat argued that the duo had breached the bail situation of not talking to reporters on the case and therefore they need to be despatched again to judicial custody.
The second they converse to the media on a topic associated to the case, their bail stands cancelled, Gharat argued.
However, Merchant submitted that the alleged media “interview” talked about within the plea was not in respect to the subject material of the case.
This was a single incident and thereafter there was no interview, Merchant submitted.
The interview was not produced earlier than the court docket “the court should have seen the interview in totality,” the defence counsel mentioned.
The press is a medium to succeed in out to the general public, this isn’t an act to insult the court docket, the lawyer argued.
People’s freedom might be curtailed provided that there may be an excessive step and this (interview) was not one such act. it didn’t quantity to interference in probe or inciting the general public to create legislation and order scenario, Merchant mentioned.
MUMBAI: The sedition cost towards Independent Lok Sabha MP Navneet Rana and her MLA-husband Ravi Rana in Maharashtra was invoked resulting from “political upheaval”, their lawyer informed a particular court docket right here on Thursday whereas opposing a police plea in search of cancellation of their bail in a case associated to Hanuman Chalisa recitation.
Both the defence and prosecution accomplished their arguments on the plea on Thursday following which particular Judge R N Rokade posted the matter for order on August 22.
Opposing the bail cancellation plea, advocate Rizwan Mechant, showing for the Ranas, mentioned the Indian Penal Code (IPC) part 124A (sedition) was invoked towards the couple because of “political upheaval” between two teams.
But the Supreme Court has stayed each case underneath the sedition cost.
“So they (prosecution) cannot ask for a review of that order” All that continues to be now could be IPC part 153A (selling enmity), he mentioned.
On May 11, the apex court docket placed on maintain the colonial-era penal legislation on sedition until an “appropriate” authorities discussion board re-examines it and directed the Centre and states to not register any recent FIR invoking the offence.
In one of many instances registered by the Mumbai police, the Rana couple was booked underneath IPC sections 124A and in addition 153A (selling enmity between completely different teams on grounds of faith, race, native land, residence, language, and doing acts prejudicial to upkeep of concord).
The Ranas had been arrested by the police in Mumbai on April 23 after they introduced that they are going to recite the Hanuman Chalisa outdoors the then-Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s non-public residence ‘Matoshree’ in suburban Bandra, resulting in protests by Shiv Sena staff.
On May 5, Judge Rokade granted the Ranas bail with sure circumstances, one in every of which prevented the lawmaker-couple from Amravati from making any assertion associated to the case to the media.
A couple of days later the police approached the particular court docket in search of that the bail of Navneet Rana, the Lok Sabha MP from Amravati, and Ravi Rana, the Independent MLA from the identical district in japanese Maharashtra, be cancelled as that they had allegedly violated bail circumstances.
Referring to the media interplay the couple had after popping out of the jail, particular public prosecutor Pradip Gharat argued that the duo had breached the bail situation of not talking to reporters on the case and therefore they need to be despatched again to judicial custody.
The second they converse to the media on a topic associated to the case, their bail stands cancelled, Gharat argued.
However, Merchant submitted that the alleged media “interview” talked about within the plea was not in respect to the subject material of the case.
This was a single incident and thereafter there was no interview, Merchant submitted.
The interview was not produced earlier than the court docket “the court should have seen the interview in totality,” the defence counsel mentioned.
The press is a medium to succeed in out to the general public, this isn’t an act to insult the court docket, the lawyer argued.
People’s freedom might be curtailed provided that there may be an excessive step and this (interview) was not one such act. it didn’t quantity to interference in probe or inciting the general public to create legislation and order scenario, Merchant mentioned.
