Delhi HC dismisses Parliament security breach accused’s plea for release

The Delhi high court said that Neelam Azad’s plea was not maintainable since she has already preferred a bail application before the trial court

The Delhi high court on Wednesday dismissed a petition by Neelam Azad, one of the six people arrested in connection with the Parliament security breach case who sought her immediate release, saying that her plea was not maintainable since she has already preferred a bail application before the trial court.

Neelam Azad (centre) (File)

Azad, was arrested along with three other accused – Sagar, Manoranjan D and Amol Shinde – for breaching the Parliament security on December 13. While Sagar Sharma, and Manoranjan D, jumped into Lok Sabha from the visitors’ gallery after clearing three layers of security and sprayed coloured smoke in a major security breach, Neelam and Anmol, began protesting outside the Parliament with similar gas canisters before their arrest. The intrusion was planned to seek the attention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on issues such as inflation and poverty. It coincided with the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament and sparked questions about laxity in security. The police had charged the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and 120B, 452, 186, 353, 452, 153 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The court was of the view that refusal to allow an accused to be defended by a legal practitioner of own choice cannot be a ground for release adding that her fundamental right under Article 22 was not violated since an advocate associated with the Delhi Legal Service Authority (DLSA) was already present in the court when the remand order was passed.

“This (not being allowed to meet the counsel) cannot be the ground for that (release). Whatever, the lawyer was there, when the court passed the order. This cannot be the ground Mr counsel. FIR is against you. There is no such right violated. You go before the trial court. Why have you filed this petition? It’s pending before the trial court,” a bench led by justice Suresh Kumar Kait said to advocate Suresh Kumar who appeared for Azad.

On Wednesday, Azad appearing through advocate Suresh Kumar submitted that her arrest was in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution since she was produced within 29 hours of arrest and wasn’t permitted by the Delhi police to consult a lawyer of her own choice. He also said that her custody was unlawful as she was not allowed to consult her own lawyer before the court even when the police had sought extension of her custody, adding that the remand order was passed without application of mind.

The Delhi police special cell appearing through standing counsel Sanjay Lao submitted that Azad had even preferred an application seeking bail before the trial court and that she could not approach two forums for the similar relief. To be sure, the city court on Tuesday had sought the Delhi police’s response in the bail application preferred by Azad.

He also submitted that the Delhi high court on December 22 had stayed city court’s order directing the Delhi police special cell to supply a copy of the FIR to Azad saying that the same could not be supplied to her without following the procedure.