The Rouse Avenue court has denied bail to Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma in the Parliament security breach case, holding that the allegations against them appear prima facie true and that statutory restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act apply.
Special NIA Judge Kiran Bansal rejected the bail pleas for the second time at the trial court level. The court said the two accused allegedly intended to create a terror-like situation and disrupt parliamentary proceedings on the anniversary of the earlier attack on Parliament.
According to the court’s observations reported by Live Hindustan – NCR, witness statements indicate that the accused had held meetings before the incident and discussed the plan to carry out the alleged terrorist activity. The court relied on this material while considering whether the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied.
The incident took place on 13 December 2023, when Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma allegedly jumped from the visitors’ gallery into the Lok Sabha chamber. The court said they removed coloured smoke canisters concealed in their shoes and released smoke inside the House. The incident interrupted parliamentary proceedings and triggered panic among lawmakers and others present in the chamber.
The breach was recorded and broadcast widely at the time, raising questions about access control, screening and security arrangements within the Parliament complex. The latest order, however, concerned the accused’s entitlement to bail and the evidentiary threshold applicable at this stage of the proceedings, rather than a final determination of guilt.
The court also noted that the accused were aware of a threat to target the Indian Parliament allegedly issued by Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. The report attributes this observation to the court. The prosecution opposed the bail applications through Special Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh.
Manoranjan D and Sharma had also sought relief by referring to the bail granted to co-accused Neelam Ranolia and Mahesh Kumawat. The court did not accept that argument and treated the circumstances and material cited against the two applicants as sufficient for the UAPA bail restrictions to operate.
Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, a court is required to deny bail when, after examining the case diary or the relevant prosecution report, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. The court’s latest decision keeps the two accused in custody as the trial proceedings continue. The next developments will depend on the progress of the case before the trial court.
