Parliament Security Breach: Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Of Accused Manoranjan D

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a bail plea filed by Manoranjan D, one of the six people arrested in the Parliament security breach case of 2023.

The case was registered by the Delhi Police under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

It has been alleged that Manoranjan along with co accused Sagar Sharma entered inside the Parliament, jumped from the public gallery, raised slogans and sprayed an unidentified chemical substance from a canister, thereby endangering the lives of the Parliamentarians.

A division bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani sought response of the Delhi Police and listed the matter for hearing on July 24.

During the hearing, Manoranjan's counsel submitted that though their “method” of protesting was wrong, it was not their intention to commit any terrorist act by entering the Parliament.

“Whether their act comes under UAPA, the question is this. They all are highly educated. Their intention was to demonstrate issues like unemployment. The way they adopted was totally wrong…. The method was wrong and it is none of their business to protest like this,” he said.

To this, Justice Singh orally remarked: “Highly educated people are more dangerous… doesn't mean that…”

The Court then proceeded to issue notice in the matter.

Manoranjan has challenged the trial court order passed on December 24 last year denying him bail in the case.

The plea submits that chargesheet has been filed in the case by the Delhi Police and the investigation qua Manoranjan is complete. It adds that Manoranjan is innocent and has been arrested without any tangible evidence.

“That nothing material has been recovered by the Investigating Agency till date, nor anything remains to be recovered at the instance or from the custody of the Petitioner warranting such pedantic registration of FIR and arrest,” the plea states.

It adds that the offences under UAPA are not made out in the case as the ingredients of Section 15 of UAPA, which contains the definition of "terrorist act", are not fulfilled.

“It is further submitted that the petitioner was never involved in any such activities and even in the alleged act, no criminal intent is forthcoming. Act without criminal intent cannot be treated offence in the eye of law. As repeatedly stated, the Petitioner was neither carrying any substances nor did any act or conduct which shall cause damage to life or property,” the plea submits.

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.”

Title: MANORANJAN D v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)