The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that disrupting the Parliament is the best way to create terror in India while hearing a bail petition filed by the accused in the 2023 Parliament security breach case.
A bench of justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur made the remarks after Manoranjan D’s counsel submitted that their act of opening smoke canisters inside the Parliament while raising slogans did not amount to terrorist act since the smoke was not obnoxious and their intention was to only highlight unemployment and not create terror.
However, the bench said, “The best way to create terror in India is to disrupt the Parliament. You disrupted the Parliament.”
Also Read: Delhi high court grants bail to Neelam Azad, Mahesh Kumawat in 2023 Parliament breach case
Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan, along with two other accused– Neelam Azad and Amol Shinde were accused of orchestrating a protest involving coloured smoke canisters on December 13, 2023.
Sharma and Manoranjan had jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors’ gallery, while Azad and Shinde protested outside.
{{/usCountry}}Sharma and Manoranjan had jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors’ gallery, while Azad and Shinde protested outside.
{{/usCountry}}The four accused were immediately apprehended on December 13, 2023, while Kumawat and Jha surrendered before the police on December 14 and both were handed over to the special cell. The intrusion was planned to attract 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 provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The two had approached the high court against the trial court’s order refusing to release them on bail. While Manoranjan had approached the court last year, Sagar approached the court on Thursday.
Manoranjan in his plea had argued that the allegations against him were vague, no culpability could be attributed to him and Delhi Police wrongly invoked UAPA charges, since the offences under the same have not been made out in the present case.
Sagar asserted that he was entitled to be released on bail on parity with the two co accused– Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who were granted bail by the high court on July 2.
The high court, while granting bail to Azad and Kumawat had deprecated their choice of place of protest, the bench had said that their protest was not a terrorist act. The court had said that their demonstrations were symbolic, in the nature of propagation of ideological messages and did not give a colour of substantial threat or terrorist intent.
During the hearing on Thursday, the court also shot down the duo’s contention of seeking bail on parity, noting that the two who were out on bail had protested outside the Parliament, while they were inside.
“You were inside the Parliament. There is no parity. You have to come on merits,” the bench said.
The court, while asking Delhi police’s lawyers– additional public prosecutor Ritesh Kumar Bahri and advocate Divya Yadav to file their response in Sharma’s bail plea, fixed October 8 as the next date of hearing.