Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has warned former MP and BJP leader Navneet Rana and her MLA husband Ravi Rana from seeking more adjournments in their plea and said otherwise it would impose a cost on the couple. As a “last chance”, the court, on Tuesday, adjourned the hearing in their petition to July 23.
Hanuman Chalisa Row Case
Justice MS Sonak was hearing a petition filed by Ranas seeking discharge in the case registered against them by Mumbai police following the Hanuman Chalisa row in 2022.
They approached the HC challenging the order of the sessions court rejecting their discharge plea. Their plea contends that the allegations against them were completely false and the FIR was registered belatedly, and the investigation was tainted.
In 2022, The police registered an FIR against the couple under section 353A of the IPC for assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging of his duty. It was alleged that the couple was resisting arrest and obstructing police personnel on April 23, 2022, who went to their Khar residence after their announcement that they would chant the Hanuman Chalisa outside the residence of the then Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray.
Ranas were booked in the Hanuman Chalisa row as well, but Mumbai police has not filed chargesheet against the two. They were arrested and were granted bail in the case after about a month.
Sessions Judge Rejects Discharge Plea
The sessions judge rejected their discharge plea and kept the case for framing of charges following which the trial would commence against them.
Their plea before the HC contends that the police have claimed that they were manhandled when they went to arrest the couple. Hence, they were booked under Section 353A of the IPC.
The couple has claimed that the Khar police had not registered any FIR when they came to arrest them and hence were not discharging their official duty.
The HC, on January 18, while granting interim relief to Ranas, directed the trial court to defer framing of charges against them. Thereafter, the matter could either did not reach for hearing or was not listed and, hence Ranas’ advocates kept seeking extension of relief of not framing charges against them.
Last month, Justice Modak had clarified that if the matter was not argued by Ranas, then he would not extend relief. However, once again, Ranas advocate sought adjournment on June 25, when Justice Modak warned them and kept the matter for hearing after four weeks.
