Thread by @LawBeatInd

🚨The plea will be taken up at 2.30 PM before a bench led by Justice Varale. It was mentioned in the morning for the hearing to be taken up. Thread for live updates from courtroom will be posted here. #HanumanChalisaControversy

https://twitter.com/lawbeatind/status/1518488205976543234

Hearing begins.
Advocate for the Petitioner says that he sought urgency and brings the attention to page 43 contents of the report
Page 47 translated copy

His lordship says that he wants to read original version

“They got info about fir that barricades were placed to prevent people from accumulating outside. On 23rd they were at residence, incident alleged to have taken place and they were arrested in evening between 5-6 pm”: Advocate for Ranas #HanumanChalisa #HanumanChalisaRow

“FIR registered at 2 am. And 124A was added in remand notice and 353 has to be added as per procedure”: advocate for Ranas #HanumanChalisa #BombayHighCourt

Advocate for Rana refers to Amish Devgan, Arnab Goswami Judgments.
Bench says Span of occurrence doesn't show its in series. #HanumanChalisa #BombayHighCourt

“Submission that series of events is one particular transaction relating to reciting of hanuman chalisa outside matoshree”: advocate for Ranas #HanumanChalisha #BombayHighCourt

“In first FIR 124A (Sedition) not mentioned”: Advocate for Ranas tells #BombayHighCourt #HanumanChalisaRow

Counsel for Ranas directs attention to remand application. “Wherein charges of sedition has been added & the Charge was missing in FIR registered on 23rd. Incident on 124A was disclosed in remand application,” he adds #HanumanChalisaRow #BombayHighCourt

“Not trying to shy away from 353, different cognizable offences disclosed”
Bench: you've been arrested in 506?
Counsel for Ranas: no, under section 508 #BombayHighCourt #HanumanChalisa

Counsel for Ranas directs attention to application where addition has been made.Section 353 is supposed to have been committed if I supposedly obstruct public servant. The moment my bail application is heard, next step would be to arrest me in 353 since it is a separate FIR”

Bench: cause of action for 124A (sedition)?
Counsel: use of certain words towards government.
Bench: on the basis of same altercations, one FIR could have been recorded!
Counsel: Absolutely! They filed multiple so they could keep me in even if i get bail for other offence.

Counsel: Its is wholly unfair what they did to us. Without referring to facts in FIR, we went on air conveying to police that because of PM coming, we are not gathering outside the house #HanumanChalisa #BombayHighCourt

Counsel: It is to be treated as one single transaction and not broken down into multiple ones. I would be covered under AT Anthony case (Supreme Court) #BombayHighCourt #NavneetRana

Advocate for Ranas urges Bombay High Court to quash FIR under section 506 of the IPC. Says unfair that multiple FIR's were registered in order to cause re-arrest even if they were to get bail later. #NavneetRana #HanumanChalisaRow

Bench: Mr. Merchant, your submissions are pertaining to s. 506 (criminal intimidation) being quashed. For final hearing also your submission is the same? Even if s. 353 is added in first offence, you have no objections?
Counsel- yes, we are okay with it. #NavneetRana

Counsel for Ranas: I don't want to go through humiliation of second arrest. She (Navneet Rana) was treated very badly.
Bench: We are not making any comments on it.
We have openly observed that those occupying certain positions in public have to behave in a certain way.

Bombay HC: We have learnt a lesson - not to expect something from people in positions of power. Whatever we observe, falls on dead ears & that better sense shall prevail on such persons. #HanumanChalisa #NavneetRana

State of Maharashtra counsel: Lordship be pleased to consider that these are 2 separate and distinct transactions. He is trying to mix up application of 124A (sedition) with present offence. #HanumanChalisa #navneetrana #BombayHighCourt

State of Maharashtra: I say that the offence u/s124A (sedition) is a subject matter of first FIR and since he submits that it is part of one and the same offence, it is not correct. #HanumanChalisa #NavneetRana

State of Maharashtra: Occurrence is different. For recital of Chalisa or attempt to do so, notice was issued to Ranas. After notice, police has requested them not to do anything further, not merely because he wanted to recite #HanumanChalisa.

Counsel for state of Maharashtra: Lordship be pleased to consider that after registration of offence, police took investigation of offence. Though, arrest of persons in said offence may be part of investigation. #HanumanChalisaRow #NavneetRana

Bench: Sedition has been applied under which offence in FIR?
State of Maharashtra: Under sedition. However, it does not "only" say sedition charges, it is for maintenance of law and order.

Bench: So 124A has been applied?
State: Yes, they wanted to recite Hanuman Chalisa outside CMs home & challenge him. If petitioners offer themselves to read the hanuman challis, read it in your home or in temple, not in CM's home. #HanumanChalisa #BombayHighCourt

Counsel for Ranas: Just a minute, it was not IN CM's home, the Chalisa was to be recited OUTSIDE his home. They didn't do it eventually, it was Cancelled.
State of Maharashtra: You have stated you wanted to recite IN FRONT of residence. #HanumanChalisa #BombayHighCourt

Bench dictates order: #HanumanChalisaRow
"Petition is taken up for hearing. Petitioners before this court say the principal prayer in petition is quashment of FIR 506 of 2022. + " #BombayHighCourt

Bench dictates order: #HanumanChalisaRow
+"Merchant learned counsel made submissions.He firstly invited our attention to FIR lodged at khar PS on 23rd at 5:23PM. This is registered for crime under section 124A." + #BombayHighCourt

Bench dictates order: #hanumanchalisarow
+"Petitioners made a statement that they would recite religious verses - hanuman chalisa infront of personal residence of Shri Uddhav Thackeray who is the chief minister."+ #BombayHighCourt

Bench dictates order: #hanumanchalisarow
+"On 22.04.2022 both petitioners reached Mumbai. At 2 pm outside personal residence declared that they would recite hanuman chalisa in personal residence matoshree bungalow of @OfficeofUT." + #BombayHighCourt

Bench dictates order: #hanumanchalisarow
+"The police officials approached petitioners and informed that they should not indulge in any such act and a notice u/s149 was also issued and so on the petitioners."+ #BombayHighCourt

Bench dictates order: #hanumanchalisarow
+"It is stated that inspite of service of notice both petitioners gave statements on various media channels & they reached an apprehension of a reaction in society as their acts are resulting in serious threat to law and order"+

Bench dictates order: #hanumanchalisarow
+ “We may state that as per contents of report when police officials proceeded in arresting petitioners, Petitioner resisted this Act and obstructed conduct of police officials” #BombayHighCourt

Bench dictates order: #hanumanchalisarow
+ “Learned counsel merchant submitted that both FIRs are incidents occurring in series of events..” + #BombayHighCourt

Bench dictates order: #hanumanchalisarow
+ “Mr merchant in support of submissions submitted that registration of FIR506/22 is unsustainable” + #bombayhighcourt

Bench dictates order: #hanumanchalisarow on submissions made by Mr. Merchant (counsel for Ranas) #BombayHighCourt

Bench dictates order #hanumanchalisarow:
+ “it is stated that Petitioners refused to cooperate with the officials then they started arguments with officials then when the officials requested them to enter in police vehicle the petitioners gave threats to officials.”+

Bombay High Court: It is submitted by SPP that at this stage court can peruse contents of reports without adding to contents where it is clearly reflected that acts of petitioners attracts 353 of IPC. #HanumanChalisa

BREAKING: “We find considerable merit in contentions of Special Public Prosecutor that it was justified in making reference to FIR where it discloses that they would recite religious verses in personal residence of CM”: Bombay HC
#HanumanChalisa

BREAKING: “Declaration that a person would recite religious verses either in personal residences of another or even at a public place is certainly a breach of personal liberty of another person.”: Bombay HC #HanumanChalisaRow

BREAKING: Bombay High Court refuses to quash FIR filed against MP Navneet Rana & her MLA husband. Says “state government is justified in apprehending that reciting of religious verse on street would lead to disturbance in law and order”#hanumanchalisa

Bombay HC: operative order in #NavneetRana & husband’s plea - “acts referred to in FIR 506 is a different set of events. We are Unable to accept submissions of Mr. Merchant & find merit in submissions of State Govt. The petition being devoid of merits requires to be dismissed.”

Counsel prays bench to clarify that observations of this court are on particulars of submissions made before this court and the learned court before whom application for grant of bail is pending shall not be influenced by these observations and decide on its own merit.

BREAKING | "State Govt. justified in apprehending disturbance to law & order": Bombay High Court refuses to quash FIRs against Navneet Rana & Ravi Rana
#HanumanChalisaRow #NavneetRana #BombayHighCourt
lawbeat.in/top-stories/br…