[ad_1]
The Delhi police opposed the bail plea of Parliament security breach case accused Neelam Azad in the Delhi high court on Wednesday, saying that the disruptive terror attack at the new Parliament building was planned with the intention to bring back what the accused called the haunted memories of the 2001 terrorist attack on the old Parliament.
The incident took place on December 13, 2023, when parliamentarians were about to observe silence and mourn those who lost their lives in the 2001 Parliament attack.
Azad, 37, was arrested along with three other accused, identified as Sagar Sharma, Manoranjan D and Amol Shinde, for allegedly opening a yellow smoke canister while shouting slogans. Sagar and Manoranjan jumped into the main hall of the Lok Sabha from the visitors’ gallery and sprayed coloured smoke leading to a major security breach. Neelam and Anmol later began protesting outside the Parliament with similar gas canisters before they were taken into custody.
The intrusion coincided with the 2001 attack and was planned, as the accused claimed, to draw the attention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to issues such as inflation and poverty. It triggered questions about laxity in security as the accused gained entry inside the Parliament building after clearing a three-layered security apparatus.
The police had charged the accused under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. According to police, Azad had conspired with other co-accused to commit the terrorist act with intention to strike terror in the minds of Parliamentarians, staff, visitors, and millions who were watching the live proceedings of the House on television.
The police’s reply, filed by additional public prosecutor Ritesh Bahri along with advocate Divya Yadav, said that plans to mount an assault were being deliberated since 2015 but were executed only when the new building was constructed and Neelam, being a woman, was an important aspect of Manoranjan’s strategy to avert any suspicion.
“Even though the Parliament building, per se, is open for visitors during its recess also, the plan was to strike when Parliament would be mourning and observing silence in memory of the 2001 Parliament attack. Even though the plans to mount an assault on the Parliament were being deliberated since 2015, by the time the plan came to fruition, the new Parliament building had been inaugurated and was functional,” the affidavit said.
It added, “In a recorded disclosure statement of accused Neelam, there is a sinister reference from Manoranjan that what they were about to do in the New Parliament will bring back haunted memories of something that had taken place in the Old Parliament. Detailed investigations have categorically established that accused Manoranjan and his associates had always been planning a disruptive terror attack in Parliament.”
The 22-page reply said that the accused used to communicate on Signal app and consciously erased all the data.
The matter was briefly heard by a bench of justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar on Wednesday but as the hearing remained inconclusive, the proceedings were adjourned to Thursday.
A city court had in September 2024 rejected bail to Azad. In its 15-page order, the city court had observed that there were sufficient reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against her were prima facie true.
In her petition before the high court Azad denied being part of the alleged conspiracy and said that the provisions of UAPA were not applicable to her as her intention was to invite attention of Parliament to pressing issues of unemployment, poverty and price rise. Azad worked as a teacher in a private school in Haryana prior to her arrest.
[ad_2]
Source link
Leave a Reply