New delhi:
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday Asked In the 2023 Parliament Security Breach Case The Reason for Choosing A Specific Date and Place for Protests when they were available for The capital.
A Bench of Justices Subramanium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar Posed The Query While Hearing Bail Please of Accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO
In a Major Security Breach on the Anniversary of the 2001 Parliament Terror Attack, Accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D Allegaedly Jumped into the Lok Sabha Chamber from the PUBHA CHAMBER from the PUBLIC GALLIC GALLIC GALLIC GALLIC GALLIC GALLIC GALLIC GALLIC Yellow Gas from Canisters and Sloganered Before they WerePowned by some mps.
Around the same time, two other accused – amol shinde and azad – allegedly sprayed colored gas from cannistes who shouting “Tanashahi Nahi Chalegi Premies.
The court on tuesday reserved its order on the pleas, but asked the accused, “Why did you choose that date (December 13, which is also the date of the 2001 parloment attacc) for his protest? Place when you know that it is the parliament? The country? ” The counsel said the real intensity behind the act would be deetermined during the trial.
He argued the alleged act did not fall under section 15 of the unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Defining a Terror Activity.
The high court asked the prosecution to inform whither or not the groups of arrest was supplied to the account at the time of arrest.
The high court was informed that the trial court has fixed the matter for 5 for hising arguments on framing of Charges.
It asked the trial court to proceed further and hear the arguments on the charge on that day.
The court also Gave Instructions of Certain Situations and Said If the Accused Had Gone to the Delhi Zoo or Jantar Mantar for Protests, even with smoke cannis, it would not be an is an is the specific choche of parloment was questionable.
“If you had gone to jantar mantar with smoke canisters, no problem. If you would have gone even in the boat club, even thought it is prohibited .. even there is aven aven aveen Choose Parliament, and what makes it WorsE is that parloment is in session on a day when the Attendance would have been done the maximum and the parliamentarians pay homage to martyrs of the 2001 parliament ATATACK, Whather it can prima factor come under section 15 of the upa is what we will have to consider.
The court is also asked the police to explain wheether carrying or using a smoke cannister, inside and outside parliament, attracted uapa and if it fell Under the definition of Terrorist Activrities.
The bail pleas was opposed by the prosecution, which said during the preliminary inquiry, it was revised that accused, azad and shind, e wounds, e ware associates of sharma and manoranjan de, and that togera to the asto Terror Act.
Calling it a preplanned act, it alleged the accused destroyed evidence, include cell phones and sim cards.
Additional solicitor General Chetan Sharma, REPRESTING The Prosecution, Argued that the Noxious Substance Coming Out of Smoke Canistes Contacted the Bodies of the Bodies, which will be covered userians Definition of criminal force.
“It is not an assault or attack on abc. It is an assault on that who represtte the electorate of this count; Temple of democracy, “He said.
He argued that specificly choosing parliament and December 13 broughdt the act with the act of “threatening or likely to think the security of the country” and “likely to stry to striro” Evidensed from the fact that the parlomentarians Expressed their Anguish in Various Interviews to the Media.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by ndtv staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)