A Delhi court has dismissed the second regular bail pleas filed by Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma, accused of jumping into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors' gallery and releasing coloured smoke canisters during the Parliament security breach incident on December 13, 2023.

The Special NIA Judge Kiran Bansal held that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the two accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were prima facie true.

The court observed that the alleged acts had disrupted parliamentary proceedings and threatened the sovereignty and integrity of India.

“The allegations against the accused persons are grave and serious, as their acts had resulted into disrupting the Parliamentary proceedings and had threatened the sovereignty and integrity of India,” the court observed.

The court noted that statements of witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure revealed that the accused had organised meetings where the alleged terrorist act was planned and discussed.

It further observed that the accused had allegedly planned to create a terror-like situation and disrupt parliamentary proceedings on December 13, 2023, coinciding with the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack.

The court also took note of the prosecution's allegation that the accused had erased data from their mobile phones before the incident and handed over their phones and SIM cards to co-accused Lalit Jha, who was allegedly tasked with destroying them.

The accused had argued that they had been in custody since December 14, 2023, and that the investigation was complete, with the main chargesheet and four supplementary chargesheets already filed. They contended that the trial was still at the stage of framing of charges and was likely to take considerable time.

They also argued that the ingredients of the UAPA were not attracted and that the alleged use of coloured smoke canisters did not constitute a terrorist act. Reliance was also placed on the bail granted to co-accused Neelam Ranoliya and Mahesh Kumawat by the Delhi High Court in July 2025.

Rejecting the plea for parity, the court observed that the circumstances of the two co-accused were materially different.

It noted that co-accused Neelam Ranoliya had remained outside Parliament and had refused to enter the building, while Mahesh Kumawat was not even in Delhi on the date of the incident and had not attended the last two meetings of the group.

In contrast, it noted that accused Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma had entered the main Parliament building and jumped from the public gallery into the Lok Sabha chamber, carrying concealed smoke canisters in their shoes.

Their actions had disrupted parliamentary proceedings and caused panic among MPs and others present inside the House, the court noted.

Referring to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the court observed that there was a statutory restriction on granting bail where the court, upon perusal of the case diary or chargesheet, finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.

The court further observed that bail under Section 43D(5) cannot be granted solely on the ground of delay in trial, and that the statutory restriction cannot be circumvented merely on that basis.

It, however, noted that constitutional courts could grant bail despite the statutory restrictions under the UAPA in appropriate cases, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb.

The court also noted that the case was already pending for an order on charge and that Special Exclusive Courts had been constituted for speedy trial of UAPA cases.

“In view of the above discussions and on perusal of the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheets, statement of witnesses and documentary evidence, the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused persons is prima facie true and therefore, the Court does not find it to be a fit case to grant regular bail to applicant/accused Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma and hence, the present bail applications stands dismissed,” the Court said.

It clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial.