On Thursday, the Bombay High Court granted relief to Amravati MP Navneet Rana and her husband, Maharashtra MLA Ravi Rana, in the Hanuman Chalisa controversy. The court instructed the trial court to postpone the proceedings related to the framing of charges against the couple until February 21.

The Ranas sought relief from the high court by challenging a session judge's order, which had dismissed their discharge application. This application was filed in response to a case initiated by the Mumbai Police in 2022 after the Hanuman Chalisa incident.

The First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the Rana couple on charges of obstructing a public servant from performing their duties, as per sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of duty) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The accusation against the Rana couple involved claims that they resisted arrest and hindered the efforts of police personnel who had come to their Khar residence on April 23, 2022. This incident occurred after the couple announced their intention to recite the Hanuman Chalisa outside the residence of the then Maharashtra Chief Minister, Uddhav Thackeray.

During the hearing on Thursday, advocate Rizwan Merchant, representing the Ranas, informed Justice PD Naik that the Khar police had not filed any First Information Report (FIR) when attempting to arrest the Rana couple. Merchant argued that the police were not executing their official duties at the Rana residence, contending that the case against them was baseless.

Merchant emphasized that the FIR was officially filed only at 5:23 p.m. on April 24, 2022, whereas Mumbai Police had been present at the Rana residence before attempting to effect the arrest. He underscored that the alleged incident, constituting the time of the arrest, occurred well before the formal registration of the FIR, casting doubt on the timing and validity of the charges against the Rana couple.

The advocate contended that the arrest of the Rana couple occurred prior to the registration of the FIR. He pointed out that the FIR was officially lodged merely nine minutes after the purported arrest, raising questions about the sequence of events and suggesting a potential discrepancy in the legal proceedings.

Nevertheless, Chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar and Additional Public Prosecutor Yogesh Dabke countered the defense's claims, asserting that there was no flaw in the process of registering the FIR. They argued against any irregularity in the FIR registration related to the case.

He highlighted that although the FIR was officially registered at 5:03 pm, the time displayed on the printer, indicating 5:23 pm, was due to technicalities in the printing process. In response to the arguments presented, the high court decided that a more comprehensive examination of the matter was necessary and scheduled a detailed hearing for February 21. Additionally, the court instructed the trial court to postpone the proceedings related to framing charges against the Ranas until the said date. The trial court, initially set to commence the charge-framing process on Friday, was directed to defer this action accordingly.