Delhi HC seeks response of police on bail plea of accused in parliament security breach case
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Delhi police and sought its response on the bail plea of Manoranjan D, who is accused in the Parliament Security breach case.
ANI
Mar 26, 2025 16:26 IST
New Delhi [India], March 26 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Delhi police and sought its response on the bail plea of Manoranjan D, who is accused in the Parliament Security breach case.
He has been in custody since December 14, 2023, along with other accused persons.
The division bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued a notice to the Delhi police and listed the case for hearing in July 2025.
His earlier bail plea was dismissed by the Trial court on December 24, 2024. He has been booked under section 186/353/153/452/201/34/120b of IPC 13/16/18 of UAPA.
Senior advocate K K Manan appeared for Manoranjan. A petition has been filed through advocates Uditi Bali and Rahul Gautam.
It is stated that the Petitioner has been in custody since 14.12.2023, and the trial is still at the stage of Scrutiny of documents. The trial will take a long time to conclude, and the same will lead to pre-trial detention.
It is further submitted that a person cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period pending trial as it is violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.
It is also submitted that offences under UAPA are not made out in the present case. The ingredients of section 15 of UAP, which contains the definition of "terrorist act", are not fulfilled, the plea said.
The "Terrorist Act" as crafted in Section 15 warrants utilisation of any substances or carrying of on any substances which is capable of or can potentially cause damage to life or properties, it added.
The plea submitted that even if the prosecution story is believed in toto, the alleged act of the Petitioner merely be treated as protest against the system.
Neither way can it be treated or termed as a "Terrorist Act" within the definition of UAPA, nor can other provisions of IPC be attracted. There is no evidence against the petitioner, which attracts the provision of UAPA and other sections of IPC, it added. (ANI)
Get the App
