Parliament Security Breach: Grounds of Arrest Supplied to Accused, Delhi Police Tells High Court

The Delhi Police on Wednesday informed the Delhi High Court that the grounds of arrest were duly provided to the individuals arrested in connection with the December 2023 Parliament security breach case.

The statement came in response to a specific query by the High Court on whether the accused had been informed of the reasons for their arrest.

“Our contention is that we have given them the grounds of arrest. Case diary records it, the arrest memo also states that grounds of arrest were given, judicial orders of the trial court and our remand application would also show the same,” the prosecutor submitted before a division bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.

The court reserved its order on the bail pleas filed by accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat. Although the pleas were earlier reserved on May 20, the court specifically heard submissions on Wednesday concerning the procedural aspect of informing the accused about the grounds of their arrest.

The security breach, which occurred on December 13, 2023 — the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack — involved accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly leaping into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors’ gallery during Zero Hour. They released yellow gas from canisters and shouted slogans before being restrained by Members of Parliament.

Simultaneously, outside the Parliament complex, two other accused, Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, were seen releasing coloured gas and shouting slogans such as “Tanashahi nahi chalegi” (dictatorship will not be tolerated).

READ ALSO  दोस्त को इच्छामृत्यु के लिए विदेश जाने से रोकने के लिए महिला दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट पहुँची

Earlier, the High Court had questioned the motive behind selecting December 13 and the Parliament complex for the protest when designated protest zones exist within the capital. The bench also asked Delhi Police to clarify whether carrying or releasing smoke canisters inside or outside the Parliament premises could attract provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and qualify as a terrorist act.

Opposing the bail pleas, the prosecution argued that preliminary investigation indicated a coordinated effort among the accused — Azad and Shinde were allegedly working in tandem with Sharma and Manoranjan to execute what has been termed a “terror act.”

READ ALSO  Public Advertisement for Adoption of Children Orphaned by COVID is Illegal: Supreme Court

The High Court was also informed that the trial court has scheduled June 5 as the date for hearing arguments on framing of charges. The High Court directed the lower court to proceed with the case on that day as planned.

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles