Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In 2023 Parliament Security Breach UAPA Case, Bars Them From Giving Interviews

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the Parliament security breach case which happened on December 13, 2023.

A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted bail to the two subject to them furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each and two sureties of like amount.

The Court however barred the two from doing any press conferences or giving any interviews. The Bench also restrained them from posting anything on the social media relating to the incident in question.

They have also been directed to report to the concerned police station on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 10 AM. The Court has also directed them not to leave the national capital. 

The Bench observed that the accused chose the Parliament, which represents the very basis of country's Democracy, to raise their voice, which cannot be called a legitimate form of protest or demonstration. However, it added that they had not propagated any movement which can be said to be against the interest of the nation.

“The activities of the Appellants are of the nature of propagation of ideological messages and in the opinion of this Court prima facie do not constitute a terrorist act and does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 15 or 18 of UAPA Act,” the Court said.

The Court also said that the smoke canisters were used by the accused which were purchased from the market and are freely available. It added that had the canisters generated any substance which can cause death or serious injury, they would not be freely available in the market.

“This Court can take judicial notice that such canisters are used in IPL games, cricket matches, and in various events and festivals like weddings, parties, Holi etc. The use of canisters which emitted yellow smoke alone does not raise a prima facie case against the Appellants and as to whether those canisters could have acted as explosives or not will be tested in trial,” the Court said.

The bench further said that there was nothing on record to show that the accused, who did not enter the Parliament, intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of the country or have committed the act with intent to strike terror. Nor it can be said that the effect of the act is likely to strike terror in the mind of people or a section of people in India or any foreign country, it added.

“This case at this juncture appears to be a case of protest and political dissent. Even though the choice and the place of the protest is highly deprecable, it cannot be said that ingredients of UAPA are attracted while considering the issue of grant of bail,” the Court said.

On accused's choice of date (same as earlier parliament attack), the Court said that even assuming that the date was chosen when there was a threat perception, it can be only said that attempt was to sensationalise the event to gain attention of people and get mileage from the incident. 

“However, this fact alone will not deter this Court from granting bail at this juncture. This Court is only going into the parameters of Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA to decide whether this is a fit case for grant of bail to the Appellants,” the Court concluded.

During the hearings, the Bench had questioned the Delhi Police as to whether offence under the stringent UAPA was made out against the accused persons.

It had orally remarked that if using smoke canister is a terrorist act, then every holi and IPL match will also attract the offence under UAPA.

The Court had then asked the Delhi Police to explain as to whether carrying or using a smoke canister, which is not lethal, is covered for the offence of terrorist act under UAPA.

While opposing Azad's bail plea, the Delhi Police told Court that the accused persons in the case wanted to bring back “haunted memories” of the 2001 Parliament attack to the “majestic” new parliament building.

In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, two persons jumped into the chamber of Lok Sabha from the public gallery when the Zero Hour was in session. The duo was identified as Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D.

In the photographs and videos that surfaced on social media, the two were seen holding canisters which released yellow gas. They were also shouting slogans. However, they were overpowered by some of the Member of Parliaments (MPs).

Two other accused, identified as Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad, also sprayed coloured gas from similar canisters outside the premises of the Parliament. They were reportedly shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi.”

Counsel for Neelam Azad: Mr. Balraj Singh Malik, Mr. Amrit Singh, Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi, Advocates

Counsel for Mahesh Kumawat: Mr Somarjuna V M, Mr Vivek Kumar, Mr Dinakar M P, Mr Amit Gupta, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Laksh Khanna, APP for the State and Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ms. Smriti Maheshwari, Ms. Diksha Suri, Ms. Samridhi Dobhal, Mr. Krishna, Mr. Hritwik Maurya, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Ms. Urja Pandey, Advocates

Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter

click here to read order