Hanuman Chalisa row: MP Navneet Rana taken to Byculla jail, while her husband shifted to Taloja jail

The police slapped sedition charges against the Rana couple, and a case was registered under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

NewsBharati    25-Apr-2022 10:42:57 AM
Total Views |
Mumbai, April 25: In a major development in the ongoing Hanuman Chalisa faceoff in Maharashtra, independent MP Navneet Rana has been shifted to Byculla women's jail, while her husband, MLA Ravi Rana, has been taken to Taloja jail, hours after the couple was sent to judicial custody.
 
Maharashtra  
 
It should be reminded that Ravi Rana and his MP wife, Navneet Rana, were booked under charges of sedition by the Mumbai Police for planning to recite Hanuman Chalisa at Matoshree. Even though they had later withdrawn their plan, the duo were arrested from their home. Later on Sunday, a bench of Bandra court remanded the couple in 14-day judicial custody.
 
The police slapped sedition charges against the Rana couple, and a case was registered under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
 
 
Furthermore, advocate Rizwan Merchant submitted a bail application on behalf of Navneet Rana and Ravi Rana. Merchant alleged that public prosecutor Gharat has framed sedition charges against the Ranas on instructions from the police department.
 
 
He described the police case as "bogus" and revealed that a second FIR had been filed against his clients in order to arrest them again in the scenario of them getting bail. He also contended that Gharat had "miserably failed" to point out any utterance by his client which amounted to showing disaffection towards the state government. Moreover, he disapproved of the applicability of Section 124A and Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony).
.