This grave accusation highlights a concerning scenario of alleged police misconduct and raises questions about the treatment of detainees under custody, in the Parliament security breach case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
In a major development that has stirred controversy and concern, five individuals accused in the Parliament security breach case have come forward and moved to delhi court with serious allegations against the Delhi Police. The accused, identified as Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Lalit Jha, Amol Shinde, and Mahesh Kumawat, have filed an application in a Delhi court, claiming they were subjected to torture, including electric shocks, and coerced into confessing their involvement in the crime and alleged associations with opposition political parties.
The application vividly details the distressing treatment meted out to the accused, stating,
“Accused persons were tortured/given electric shocks to sign and confess the commission of crime under UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) and their association with national political opposition parties… two accused persons were forced to write on the paper about their association with the political party/leader of the opposition political party.”
This grave accusation highlights a concerning scenario of alleged police misconduct and raises questions about the treatment of detainees under custody.
ALSO READ: Money Laundering Case of AAP Leader Satyendar Jain In SUPREME COURT | A Detailed Overview
The matter was brought before Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur, who has scheduled the hearing for February 17, allowing the Delhi Police Special Cell time to respond to these serious allegations. During the court proceedings, the Special Cell also requested an extension of the judicial custody of the accused by a month, citing concerns over potential further offenses and the risk of evidence tampering.
Following the Special Cell’s request, ASJ Kaur extended the judicial custody of the accused until March 1. This decision comes after the accused were initially taken into police custody in December, following their involvement in the Parliament security breach incident.
The allegations of torture and forced confessions have sparked a debate on the conduct of law enforcement agencies, especially in high-profile cases. Another accused, Neelam Azad, had previously claimed during a court hearing that a woman officer had forcibly obtained her signature on 52 blank pages, adding another layer of complexity to the accusations of rights violations.
Amit Shukla, the lawyer representing the five accused, has voiced opposition to the extension of their judicial custody, arguing against the treatment his clients have allegedly received. The case took a dramatic turn on December 13, when Manoranjan and Sagar reportedly jumped inside the Lok Sabha hall from the visitors’ gallery and released smoke canisters, while Azad and Shinde were arrested for similar actions outside the new Parliament building. Kumawat is accused of facilitating contact between Jha, who is alleged to be the “mastermind” behind the incident, and the others through a Facebook group named Bhagat Singh Fan Page. Jha faces accusations of destroying evidence linked to the conspiracy.
This case not only brings to light the security breach in one of the nation’s most secure locations but also casts a shadow over the methods employed by law enforcement in extracting confessions and handling accused individuals. The allegations of torture, if proven true, could have significant implications for the credibility of the police investigation and the broader issue of human rights within the judicial process. As the court date approaches, all eyes will be on the Delhi Police Special Cell’s response to these serious claims and the subsequent legal proceedings that will unfold.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES