Ranas were booked and arrested Khar Police The station’s officials were on April 23 for alleged offenses of sedition and violation of harmony, when they announced their intention to chant the ‘Hanuman Chalisa’ outside. Matoshreeprivate residence of Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray in Bandra (East).
The police cited “media bytes” given by the couple between April 20 and April 23 against the Ranas’ bail on April 29. The reply stated that the remarks made by the Ranas “substantiate their criticism and the remarks are neither justified. The fundamental right to freedom of expression is neither limited nor relevant”. It was said in the petition that his statements have come under the purview of section 124A (sedition).
The police’s reply said, “The words of the accused are clearly intended to incite hatred or contempt against the government… to promote feelings of malice and enmity among different sections of the citizens.”
The prosecution also cited the registration of 18 cases against MLA Rana and seven against MP Rana.
The police’s reply, presented and argued by Special Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat, also said that the Ranas “made an effective plan in a well-thought-out manner”. The police said that if the recitation of the ‘Hanuman Chalisa’ is opposed, “the religious sentiments of Hindus would be violated or alternatively, if allowed, it would hurt the religious sentiments of citizens of other religions because It will show that only Hinduism is preferred in this republic state”.
On April 25, the couple moved a sessions court through their lawyer Rizwan Merchant, seeking bail. His petition states that the recitation of ‘Hanuman Chalisa’ was announced to gain popular support and there was no intention or intention to create a feeling of hatred.
Submitting that there was no intention to create communal tension, the petition submitted before the sessions court said, “The government cannot be susceptible, nor can it be impervious to criticism… Hanuman outside Matoshree The call to recite the Chalisa cannot be by any stretch of the imagination. It should be seen as an attempt to incite one community against another.”
It said that on the instructions of the present state machinery, the police had “enforced the draconian provision of 124A (sedition) only with the intention of suppressing their freedom of speech and expression”. The bail plea also states, “The offense against the applicants has not been disclosed. The acts of the applicants cannot be termed as an offense of sedition within the scope of any imagination. Their intention is to incite violence or cause any public disorder.” was not.”