img

In the recent legal proceedings, the Delhi Police vehemently opposed the bail plea filed by Neelam Azad, who stands accused in connection with the breach of security at the Parliament. The law enforcement contended that her actions were tantamount to “disrupting the sovereignty and integrity” of India.

 

Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur, after careful consideration, deferred the verdict on the application to January 18. The plea argued that Azad’s continued custody served no investigative purpose, emphasizing that she was no longer essential for the ongoing inquiry.

 

However, the police adamantly opposed the bail request, asserting that the investigation was in its infancy and that granting bail would “hamper, hinder, and obstruct” the investigative process.

 

Special Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, representing the police, articulated concerns that the accused could exert undue influence on the ongoing investigation. Singh emphasized Azad’s direct involvement in an offense carrying severe penalties, ranging from a life sentence to the death penalty.

 

“The accusations against the defendant are weighty, grave, and of a heinous nature. The individuals in question are actively engaged in undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India,” asserted the prosecutor.

 

He emphasized the presence of “strong, cogent, convincing, clinching, and credible material, evidence, and other documents” against the accused, making a compelling case against her release on bail.

 

“There exists ample, substantial, and sufficient material, evidence, and other documents pointing to the involvement of the present accused in an offense punishable under UAPA,” he added.

 

The prosecutor further argued that the accused individuals wield significant power and influence, posing a threat to the investigating agency if granted bail.

 

“The nature and gravity of the offense, coupled with the severity of the potential punishment, are crucial considerations at this stage of bail consideration. The material, evidence, and other documentary proof indicate her complicity in the offense, thereby disentitling her from bail,” he stated.

 

He asserted that prima facie evidence supports reasonable grounds against the accused, negating the possibility of release on bail, especially considering the pending investigation.

 

The Delhi Police implored the judge to dismiss the current bail application, deeming it “devoid of merits of the case in the interest of justice.”

 

In a significant breach of security on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D infiltrated the Lok Sabha chamber during Zero Hour, releasing yellow gas and shouting slogans before being subdued by some MPs.

 

Simultaneously, two other accused, Amol Shinde and Azad, discharged colored gas while proclaiming “tanashahi nahi chalegi” outside Parliament premises.

 

All four were apprehended at the scene, while Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat were arrested later. Presently, all six accused are under judicial custody.