Parliament security breach: HC to hear bail plea of accused on May 7

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said it would hear on May 7 the bail pleas of two accused arrested in the 2023 Parliament security breach case.

A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, before whom the bail pleas were listed for hearing on Tuesday, was informed by the prosecutor that an additional solicitor general has to argue on behalf of the prosecution and he was unavailable today.

Accepting the request for adjournment on behalf of the prosecution, the court said it would hear on May 7 the bail pleas of Neelam Azad, the sole woman accused in the case, and Mahesh Kumawat.

The counsel for Azad opposed the adjournment request saying "it was a delaying tactics" and such a conduct was not good for the country.

The court, however, shot back saying, "enough, you have irritated us".

Earlier, the high court had asked the police to explain whether carrying or using a smoke canister, which is not lethal, is covered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for the offence of terrorist activities.

In a major 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, released yellow gas from canisters and shouted slogans before they were overpowered by some MPs.

Around the same time, two other accused -- Amol Shinde and Azad -- allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi" outside Parliament premises.

The court had orally observed that if a smoke canister, which was freely available in the market, will attract UAPA then people would be committing this offence in every Holi festival and even Indian Premier League (IPL) matches will also attract this provision.

It had asked the prosecutor to take instructions on the aspect and apprise the court.

The counsel for Azad has submitted that the woman be granted bail as the provisions of UAPA cannot be attracted in the case.

As per section 15 UAPA, the definition of terrorist act says "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,'?  "By using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country".

Seeking bail for Azad, her counsel had said she was not carrying any explosives in Parliament and was standing outside.

Opposing the bail plea, the police had said the accused had intended to bring back "haunted memories" of the 2001 Parliament attack.

The police had said detailed investigations have categorically established that accused Manoranjan D and his associates had always been planning a disruptive terror attack in Parliament.

The trial court had rejected Azad's bail plea, saying there was sufficient evidence to believe that allegations against her were "prima facie" true.

It noted that all the accused persons -- Azad, Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat -- already had the knowledge about the threat given by designated terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu for targeting Parliament on December 13, 2023.

Despite the threat perception, the accused persons being aware of the same carried out the alleged offence in Parliament on the same day, it observed.

Four were taken into custody from the spot, while Jha and Kumawat were arrested later.

The prosecution had opposed the bail application, calling the offence "grave". It was alleged that Azad was involved in disrupting the sovereignty and integrity of India.