New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday explained the reason for choosing a specific date and location for protests from those arrested in the case of 2023 Parliament security violations, when they were aware of protests in the capital.
A bench of Justices Subronam Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar presented the query after hearing the bail arguments of accused Nilem Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who was arrested in the case.
In a major security violations on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terrorist attack, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoraranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha Chamber from public gallery during zero hours, released yellow gas from Kanastars and slogan before some MPs overpower.
Around the same time, two other accused – Amol Shinde and Azad – will run out of the Parliament complex “Dictashi Nahi (dictatorship will not work)” allegedly sprayed colored gas from the concerts.
The court reserved its order on the arguments on Tuesday, but asked the accused, “Why did you choose the date (December 13, which is also the 2001 Parliament attack date) for your opposition? Why did you choose that place when you know that this is Parliament? When you are the nominated places to protest?” The lawyer said that the real intent behind the Act would be determined during the test.
He argued that the alleged Act did not come under Section 15 of the illegal activities (prevention) Act (UAPA), defining an terrorist activity.
The High Court asked the prosecution to whether the arrest was supplied on the basis of arrest on the basis of arrest at the time of arrest.
The High Court was informed that the trial court on June 5 settled the case to hear the arguments for implicating the allegations.
It asked the trial court to proceed and hear the arguments on the charge on that day.
The court also gave examples of some circumstances and said that if the accused had gone to the Delhi Zoo or Jantar Mantar for protests, even with smoking concerts, it would not be an issue, but the specific choice of Parliament was suspicious.
“If you went to Janta Manti with smoking concerts, there is no problem. If you had gone to the boat club, even if it is prohibited .. still we may have seen it later. But when you choose Parliament, and it is worse that it is a day for a day, it is maximizing. We have to consider 15.
The court also asked the police to convince whether by carrying or using a smoke canister inside and outside Parliament, and if it fell into the definition of terrorist activities.
The plea of bail was opposed by the prosecution, stating that during the preliminary investigation, it was discovered that the accused, Azad and Shind, E Sharma and Manoraranjan D were ally, and they together entered into the terrorist act.
Calling it a pre -renamed Act, it destroyed the evidence including cell phone and SIM card.
Representing the prosecution, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma argued that toxic substances from the smoke contacted the bodies of MPs, which would be covered under the definition of criminal force.
He said, “This is not an attack or attack on ABC. It is an attack on those who represent the voters of this country; 140 million people are crystallized and subsumes at a special place, E which is the temple of democracy,” he said.
He argued that especially the Choosing Parliament and on 13 December brought the Act within the Act of “the possibility of threatening or threatening the country threatening” and “the possibility of attacking terror”, which was clear from the fact that the MPs expressed their pain in various interviews to the media.
(Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is published by a syndicated feed.)
