Six months after six persons were jailed under terror charges for allegedly breaching the security at the new Parliament building, the Delhi police are all set to file a chargesheet against the suspects in a city court on June 7.
Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena accorded sanction to prosecute the six persons under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
On December 13, 2023, two of the six accused jumped into the well of the Parliament activating colour spray canisters hidden in their shoes. The accused, drawn from different social and economic grounds, who allegedly breached the Parliament security to protest against various policies of the government such as unemployment, farmers’ crisis, Manipur ethnic riots, have been languishing in jail for the past six months as the police sought several extensions to file the chargesheet.
The six accused — Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Neelam Ranolia Azad, Amol Shinde, Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat — were booked under various Sections of the anti-terror UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) such as criminal conspiracy, trespass, provoking a riot and obstructing a public servant in discharge of functions.
Section 43D (2) of the UAPA inserted through an amendment in 2008 states that “if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of 90 days, the court may, if it is satisfied with the report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 90 days, extend the said period up to 180 days.”
A government source said, “the police sought multiple extensions. However, they have time till June 9 to file the chargesheet. The police will be filing the chargesheet, running into thousands of pages on Friday.”
The accused have been denied a copy of the First Information Report (FIR).
‘Absolutely fine’
Ram Niwas, elder brother of Neelam Azad, told The Hindu, “They even refused to provide us a copy of the FIR. My sister is in jail, but her spirits are high. She is absolutely fine.”
The government source said that though a trial court had ordered providing a copy of the FIR to the accused, the police moved the Delhi High Court which stayed the court’s order.
“The High Court relied on a Supreme Court order in the Youth Bar Association case of 2016 where it was ruled that FIRs in sensitive cases such as terrorism should not be uploaded on police website,” the source said.
The apex court had ruled to upload the copies of the FIRs, “unless the offence is sensitive in nature,” there was no mention of not providing a copy to the accused. After the incident, the Lok Sabha Secretariat suspended eight security personnel and the security was handed over to the Central Industrial Security Force.
On December 15 last year, seeking the custody of four accused persons, the Delhi police told the court that the act was “a well-planned” conspiracy and an attack on the Parliament of India, adding that the accused may also be associated with other terrorist organisations. Police said a “missing” pamphlet was found on the accused which had a photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The pamphlet declared a reward payable through Swiss banks, for whoever finds him. Police said it was nothing less than showing the Prime Minister as a “proclaimed offender.”
