Today, 29th April, The Delhi High Court will hear the bail plea of the accused in the Parliament security breach case on May 7. The incident had triggered serious concerns over security lapses within the parliamentary complex.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court announced on Tuesday that it will hear the bail applications of two accused individuals in the 2023 Parliament security breach case on May 7.
A bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was informed by the prosecutor that an additional solicitor general needed to argue for the prosecution but was unavailable that day.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Seeks Police’s Reply on Bail Plea of Parliament Security Breach Accused
Accepting the prosecution’s request for an adjournment, the court scheduled the hearing for the bail pleas of Neelam Azad, the sole female accused in the case, and Mahesh Kumawat.
Azad’s counsel opposed the adjournment, labeling it as a “delaying tactic” and arguing that such behavior was detrimental to the country.
The court responded, stating,
“Enough, you have irritated us.”
Earlier, the high court had asked the police to clarify whether carrying or using a harmless smoke device falls under the stringent Unlawful Activities Act concerning terrorist activities.
In a significant security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, releasing yellow gas from canisters and shouting slogans before being subdued by some MPs.
Concurrently, two other accused, Amol Shinde and Azad, reportedly sprayed colored gas from canisters outside the Parliament while chanting “tanashahi nahi chalegi.”
Also Read: Parliament Security Breach: Delhi Police Requests More Time for Investigation
The court had previously noted that if a readily available smoke canister could attract UA provisions, then similar offenses could occur during every Holi festival or even at Indian Premier League matches. The court instructed the prosecutor to gather instructions on this matter and report back.
Azad’s counsel argued for her bail, asserting that the provisions of the UA did not apply in this case.
According to Section 15 of the UA, a terrorist act is defined as “Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,” using various means to cause harm or disruption.
In her defense, Azad’s counsel stated that she was not carrying any explosives inside Parliament and was merely standing outside.
The police opposed the bail plea, claiming that the accused intended to evoke “haunted memories” of the 2001 Parliament attack. They argued that detailed investigations indicated that Manoranjan D and his associates had been planning a disruptive terror attack in Parliament.
Also Read: Parliament Security Breach: Accused Alleging Torture to Have Hearing on March 11
The trial court had denied Azad’s bail request, citing sufficient evidence to support that the allegations against her were “prima facie” true. It noted that all accused individuals, including Azad, Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, Lalit Jha, and Mahesh Kumawat, were aware of the threat posed by designated terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu regarding targeting Parliament on December 13, 2023.
Despite this awareness, the accused proceeded with their actions on that day, the court observed. Four of them were apprehended at the scene, while Jha and Kumawat were arrested later. The prosecution characterized the offense as “grave,” asserting that Azad was involved in undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Case Title: MANORANJAN D v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)