In a significant development, Delhi Police informed the Delhi High Court about the grave intentions behind the December 13, 2023, Parliament security breach. The accused, arrested for this breach, purportedly aimed to invoke the traumatic memories of the 2001 Parliament attack.
During the court proceedings regarding the bail plea of Neelam Azad, the only woman accused in the case, the police submitted a detailed response. They opposed her bail, citing the severity of the planned attack. The hearing took place before a bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, who have deferred the matter to the next day for further consideration.
According to police submissions, Manoranjan D, along with his associates, meticulously planned a terror strike to coincide with the Parliament’s remembrance of the 2001 attacks during its Winter Session. The new Parliament building, which symbolizes a “resurgent, revitalized India,” was identified as their target, intensifying the symbolic impact of their planned actions.
The investigation has revealed that these plans have been in the making since as early as 2015. Disturbingly, the accused used images of revered Indian patriots like Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose to misleadingly project a patriotic facade, while interrogation exposed their superficial understanding of these historical figures.
The day of the breach saw chaos and terror unfold within the Parliament premises, causing momentary nationwide panic. Actions by the accused included jumping into the Lok Sabha chamber and releasing yellow gas, alongside other disruptive activities outside the Parliament building, orchestrated to coincide with the anniversary of the previous Parliament attack.
The police’s report highlighted that despite the absence of explosives, the nature of the accused’s activities warranted severe judicial scrutiny. They pointed out that there was a significant delay in filing the bail plea, which contravened the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act’s stipulations, thus rendering the plea ineligible for consideration.
On the defense side, Azad’s counsel argued her innocence, noting her lack of direct involvement in the violent act, as she did not carry explosives and was positioned outside the Parliament. Additionally, they cited financial constraints and lack of resources as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.
The trial court had previously denied bail, recognizing the substantial evidence against Azad and her co-accused, who were allegedly aware of a specific terror threat targeting the Parliament on the same day.
