- US floats Donbas for NATO deal
- ‘Break India vector’: BJP attacks Congress over Bharat Summit
- Gujarat Dy CM reviews law and order, calls for stepped-up action against drugs
- Manipur security operations to be intensified to nab culprits behind violence, CM chairs high-level review meet
- ‘PM doesn’t do it’: Sam Pitroda on Rahul Gandhi’s phone tap claim
- Trinamool MP Abhishek Banerjee appears before Kolkata Police for questioning over CEC post
- Thanjavur farmers carry water in pots to save withering Samba crops
- Elon Musk Joins 43,000 Signatures Seeking Jensen Huang’s Return to Nvidia
Delhi court rejects bail plea of two accused
In Short
In an order passed on Friday, Special Judge Kiran Bansal noted that the accused -- Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma -- sought bail citing long incarceration and parity with two co-accused who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court.
Share :
Delhi court rejects bail plea of two accused
New Delhi: A Delhi court has dismissed the regular bail pleas of two accused in the December 23 Parliament security breach case for a second time.
In an order passed on Friday, Special Judge Kiran Bansal noted that the accused -- Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma -- sought bail citing long incarceration and parity with two co-accused who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court.
The judge underlined that the statutory bar on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act applied in the present case.
"There are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the accused persons is prima facie true. Therefore, the court does not find it fit to grant regular bail to applicants Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma. The present bail applications stand dismissed," the judge said.
On July 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted bail to co-accused Neelam Ranolia alias Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat.
"The grounds of parity are not available to the present accused persons," the judge said on Friday's hearing. It observed that the high court had noted that Neelam stayed outside Parliament and Mahesh was not in Delhi that day.
"However, the present two accused persons had entered the main Parliament and jumped from the public gallery to the main hall of the Lok Sabha," the court said, adding that canisters "were concealed in the shoes and parliamentary proceedings were disrupted."
The order said, "There is a statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P)A and the accused cannot be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the accused persons are prima facie true."
Examining the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets, the court said, "The allegations against the accused persons are grave and serious, as their acts had resulted in disrupting parliamentary proceedings and threatened the sovereignty and integrity of India."
The court noted that the accused chose the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack to commit the act. It also noted the allegation that the accused erased data from their phones and handed the devices to co-accused Lalit Jha for destruction. The judge said bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of delay.
"Needless to say, nothing observed herein shall have a bearing upon the merits of the case," the court said.
