Today, On 2nd July, The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the December 13, 2023 Parliament security breach case. The incident had sparked major security concerns within the nation’s highest legislative body.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who are accused in the Parliament security breach incident that occurred on December 13, 2023.
The decision was made by a division bench consisting of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, with the ruling having been reserved since May 21.
The court allowed bail on the condition that both individuals provide a bail bond of Rs.50,000 each, along with two sureties of the same amount.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Seeks Police’s Reply on Bail Plea of Parliament Security Breach Accused
The Court has prohibited the two individuals from holding any press conferences or conducting interviews.
Additionally, they are barred from sharing any information related to the incident on social media.
Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat have also been instructed to remain in Delhi and to check in at the police station every Monday.
In a significant security incident on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D reportedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, releasing yellow gas from canisters and chanting slogans before being subdued by several MPs.
Simultaneously, two other accused Amol Shinde and Azad allegedly sprayed colored gas from canisters while shouting “tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won’t work)” outside the Parliament grounds.
Azad’s lawyer argued for her bail, asserting that UAPA provisions should not apply in her case, as she did not bring any explosives into Parliament and merely stood outside.
The police opposed the bail plea, claiming the accused intended to evoke “haunted memories” of the 2001 Parliament attack.
The prosecution contended that preliminary inquiries revealed Azad and Shinde were associates of Sharma and Manoranjan D, and they collectively perpetrated the terror act. They informed the high court that they had “duly supplied” the grounds for the arrests to the accused.
This assertion responded to the court’s question about whether the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the accused.
The court previously inquired why the specific date of December 13 was chosen for the protest, noting it coincided with the notorious 2001 Parliament attack, while also highlighting that there were designated protest areas in the capital.
Additionally, the court sought clarification from the police on whether carrying or using a smoke canister inside and outside Parliament fell under UAPA and constituted terrorist activities.
The trial court denied Azad’s bail plea, stating that there was enough evidence to suggest that the allegations against her were “prima facie” true.
All accused Azad, Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, Lalit Jha, and Mahesh Kumawat were aware of the threat issued by designated terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu regarding targeting Parliament on December 13, 2023.
Four of the accused were apprehended at the scene, while Jha and Kumawat were arrested later.
Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
