Parliament security breach case
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by Parliament security breach case accused Neelam Azad seeking immediate release from the custody of Delhi Police. The counsel for Delhi Police opposed the plea’s maintainability, stating: “The prayer is not maintainable, whereas this issue is already pending before the trial court.” Azad’s counsel argued: “We are challenging the remand order. I was not allowed to talk to my lawyer. They restrained me from talking to the lawyer. It is an admitted fact; it’s in the status report.” In response, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain noted: “For the relief sought in the present petition, the petitioner has already moved an application before the trial court...Petition is not maintainable and dismissed accordingly.”Claiming that her arrest was illegal, Azad has said that it was in contravention of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. On Tuesday, a local court directed the Delhi Police to file a response to the bail application moved by Neelam Azad, one of the six accused in the December 13, 2023, Parliament security breach case. Azad, with three other accused persons, was arrested on December 13, 2023. All the six accused — Manoranjan D., Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, Neelam Devi Azad, Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat — are in police custody till January 5. Manoranjan and Sagar had burst yellow smoke canisters on the 22nd anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack after jumping into the Lok Sabha hall from the visitors’ gallery before they were overpowered by the MPs present in the House. Azad and Shinde also burst smoke canisters and raised slogans outside Parliament. Jha is believed to be the mastermind of the entire plan, who reportedly also fled with the mobile phones of the four others from Parliament, sources had said. Azad has challenged the legality of the remand order dated December 21, 2023, on the ground that she wasn’t allowed to consult the legal practitioner of her choice to defend her during the proceeding of the remand application dated December 21, 2023, moved by the state. She has further alleged that she was produced after 29 hours contrary to the law. The plea reads, “The petitioner has placed reliance on the words ‘choice’ and ‘defended’ in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India to emphasise that it is an admitted fact that the state prevented her from having a legal representation of her choice and when she was produced before the court, although an advocate was indeed appointed by the Ld. Court, she wasn’t given the opportunity to choose the most suitable advocate from DLSA.” (IANS)
Also Watch: