The Delhi High Court has issued a notice regarding the bail plea of Manoranjan D, one of six individuals arrested in connection with the 2023 Parliament security breach case. The case, registered by the Delhi Police, falls under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Allegations Against the Accused
According to the prosecution, Manoranjan D, along with co-accused Sagar Sharma, gained unauthorized access to the Parliament. The duo allegedly jumped from the public gallery, shouted slogans, and released an unidentified chemical substance from a canister, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety of Parliamentarians.
Read Also: Execution of Gift Deed After Arbitral Award Indicates Attempt to Evade Decree: Delhi High Court
A division bench consisting of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has sought a response from the Delhi Police. The next hearing on the matter is scheduled for July 24.
During the hearing, Manoranjan's counsel acknowledged that the method adopted by the accused was inappropriate but argued that their intent was not to engage in any terrorist activity.
“Whether their act falls under UAPA is the key question. They are highly educated individuals. Their objective was to highlight issues like unemployment. However, the approach they chose was completely wrong,” the defense submitted.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Awards ₹34.41 Lakh To Bridgestone In Trademark Infringement Case
Responding to the argument, Justice Singh remarked:
“Highly educated people are more dangerous… doesn't mean that…”
Subsequently, the court proceeded to issue a notice in the matter.
Bail Plea and Legal Submissions
Manoranjan D’s bail plea challenges a trial court order dated December 24, 2023, which denied him bail. The petition argues that:
- A chargesheet has already been filed, and the investigation concerning Manoranjan is complete.
- There is no concrete evidence to justify his arrest.
- “Nothing material has been recovered by the Investigating Agency, nor is there anything left to be seized from the custody of the petitioner,” the plea states.
- The offenses under UAPA do not apply as the legal definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of UAPA is not fulfilled.
- “The petitioner was never involved in any such activities. No criminal intent can be inferred from his actions. An act without criminal intent cannot be considered an offense under the law,” the petition further submits.
Read Also: 'Mere Presence at Protest Site No Ground for UAPA': Khalid Saifi Seeks Bail in 2020 Delhi Riots Case
The security breach occurred on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack. During the Zero Hour session in the Lok Sabha, two individuals—identified as Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D—jumped into the chamber from the public gallery. They were seen holding canisters that released yellow gas while raising slogans. However, MPs present at the scene managed to overpower them.
Additionally, two other accused—Amol Shinde and Neelam Azad—were reportedly seen outside the Parliament premises, spraying colored gas from similar canisters while shouting “tanashahi nahi chalegi” (dictatorship will not be tolerated).
Read Also: Delhi High Court Directs Customs to Release Seized Gold Kada of Indian Tourist
The Delhi High Court’s notice marks a significant development in the case. The court will further deliberate on whether the charges under UAPA are justified and if the accused individuals should be granted bail. The response from the Delhi Police, expected in the next hearing, will play a crucial role in determining the legal course of action.
The case continues to spark debates on security measures within the Parliament and the legal boundaries of protest methods in a democratic setup. The hearing is set for July 24, where further arguments from both sides will be considered.
Title: MANORANJAN D v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
