A court in Thane recently granted pre-arrest bail to a Marathi rapper who was booked for allegedly defaming Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s government in a song.
On April 4, Snehal Kamble, a Yuva Sena member saw on Twitter that Rajesh Mungse had posted a rap song. The song suggested that the Mr. Shinde-led Shiv Sena accepted money to form their own government. The lyrics of the song were “The thieves have come after taking ₹50 crores.”
Finding the song to be defamatory against her party, Ms. Kamble lodged a first information report at the Sahivajinagar Police Station.
Mr. Mungse was charged with Sections 505(2) - statements made in public for creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes, 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory) of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Mungse filed for anticipatory bail on April 11.
Also Read | Court grants interim relief to Marathi rapper for alleged song against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde
Advocate Shubham Kahite, appearing for Mr. Mungse, said his right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Constitution of India under Article 19 (1) (a), has been violated. He contended that Mr. Mungse has raised voice against the injustice being caused to public at large at the hands of members of some political party.
The prosecution however, strongly opposed the application on the ground that the wordings used in the rap songs are very objectinable pointing out conduct of some members of political parties due to which there is likelihood of disturbance of law and order in this State.
Additional Sessions Judge R G Waghmare at Kalyan court granted anticipatory bail to Mr. Mungse on a surety of ₹15,000. The order was passed on July 20 but was made available on Thursday.
The court said, “It does not appear that the electronic instruments are the material evidence in this crime by which it is alleged that the rap song has been composed. The video is already available on social media and hence, for the recovery of the same, there is no need of physical custody of the applicant. Therefore, I do not find that physical custody of the applicant would serve any purpose.”
