Parliament Security Breach: Delhi HC grants bail to accused Neelam Azad, Mahesh Kumawat; asks to furnish ₹50,000 bond
The accused, Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat have also been barred from giving interviews, holding press conferences, or posting anything on social media regarding the incident.
The Delhi HC bench presided by Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar have further been asked to not leave Delhi and report to the police station every Monday.
The case was heard by the higher court after Azad and Kumawat challenged a trial court's order rejecting their bail pleas.
In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, other accused in the case Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters and sloganeered before they were overpowered by some MPs.
Around the same time, two other accused — Amol Shinde and Azad — allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while shouting 'tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)' outside Parliament premises.
The bail pleas were opposed by the prosecution which said during the preliminary inquiry, it was revealed that accused Azad and Shinde were associates of Sharma and Manoranjan.
All the accused — Azad, Kumawat, Manoranjan, Sharma, Shinde, and Lalit Jha, during the trial court proceedings admitted to knowing that a threat was given by designated terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu for targeting Parliament on December 13, 2023, the prosecution added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Calcutta HC seeks affidavits from Centre, Bengal and Delhi govts on deportation of Bengali migrant family
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday sought affidavits from the Union government, the West Bengal government and the Delhi government in connection with the arrest and alleged deportation of a Bengali-speaking migrant family from Birbhum district. The court move came on a habeas corpus petition filed by the relatives of the family. The matter will be heard next on August 6. A division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra issued the directions after being informed that parallel proceedings on the same matter were pending before the Delhi High Court — details that had not been disclosed in the current plea. Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Raghunath Chakraborty submitted that the whereabouts of the detained family remain unknown. Delhi Police counsel Dhiraj Trivedi told the court that a writ petition had been filed in Delhi High Court challenging the deportation, but was dismissed after the deportation was carried out. 'They were deported in June, that is in the Delhi High Court order. The matter is pending in that High Court. They have suppressed the facts in this court,' he said. Additional Solicitor General Ashok Chakraborty, appearing for the Union government, submitted: 'If the order of deportation is executed, how is there a habeas corpus?' Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing the West Bengal government, said, 'Let them (the Centre) file how many Bengalis have been detained and how many Bengalis have been pushed back (into Bangladesh).' The court expressed displeasure over the petitioners not disclosing that they had already approached the Delhi High Court. After the order was dictated, Banerjee told the bench: 'Who will decide (who is to be detained)? The appropriate authority is not the police or constable. You cannot pick up someone just because they are speaking Bengali. There are procedures. These three or four cases are very alarming.' The bench also orally asked during the hearing whether there was any basis to allegations that Bengali-speaking people were being picked up and deported from various states 'suddenly' in June, though no formal order was passed on this point. The ASG submitted that under the Foreigners Act, individuals without valid passports or visas can be deported. Responding to that, the Deputy Solicitor General told the court, 'After the Pahalgam attack, people in Kashmir were also rounded up, and everyone was released. People speaking Bengali were not picked up and deported. Hundreds were rounded up, but most were released.' According to Bhodu Sheikh of Birbhum, his daughter Sunali Khatun, son-in-law Danish Sheikh, and their minor son were deported by officers of the K N Katju Marg police station under Delhi's Rohini police district on June 26. He claimed the family had travelled to Delhi on May 5 and were detained on June 18. Anjela Bibi, a relative from Murarai in Birbhum, also alleged that the family — who worked as waste pickers — were picked up from Bengali Basti in Rohini's Sector 26, along with three others from Birbhum. As per entries in a Delhi Police general diary, the detained persons allegedly told police they were from Bagerhat, Bangladesh. They were subsequently handed over to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), and later to the Border Security Force (BSF), before being deported.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
₹100 crore allocated for Ghatkesar-Yadagirigutta MMTS extension; MP Chamala thanks Ministry of Railways
Bhongir Congress MP Chamala Kiran Kumar Reddy has thanked the Ministry of Railways for allocating ₹100 crore in the 2025–26 financial year for the long-pending extension of the Multi-Modal Transport System (MMTS) from Ghatkesar to Yadagrigutta (Raigiri), a 33-km stretch sanctioned in 2016. In a post made on X, the MP said that he had raised the issue during the Zero Hour in the Lok Sabha on April 3. In a written response, Union Minister of State for (Railways) Ravneet Singh informed the MP that the Ministry of Railways had decided to fully fund the project, which was originally taken up on a cost-sharing basis with the Telangana government. Reason for delay in execution The Union Minister said that the delay in execution was due to the State not depositing its share of the estimated cost. 'However, the project is now being taken up with complete funding by the Railways,' Mr. Singh said, adding that the ₹100 crore allocation for the current financial year would depend on the progress of the work and the demand from the executing agency. Land acquisition for the extension is currently underway, and Mr. Reddy assured that he would coordinate with the concerned agencies to expedite the process The MP also thanked Union Railway Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw for the full financial backing of the project.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Controversy may help film's performance: Top court defers 'Udaipur Files' hearing
The Supreme Court on Monday deferred the hearing on petitions relating to the controversial film 'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder', observing that the ongoing row could actually aid its performance."If there is a controversy, the movie is likely to perform well," Justice Surya Kant remarked, in a lighter vein, while hearing the matter alongside Justice Joymalya bench was hearing two petitions - one filed by Mohammad Javed, an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, and the other by the makers of the film challenging the Delhi High Court's stay on its The court said it would await the outcome of the proceedings before the Centre and posted the matter to next Monday, July 21. "We expect that the committee constituted by the Centre will hear the matter immediately, without any loss of time."The court allowed Javed, who was not a petitioner before the Delhi High Court, to appear before the committee. "We also permit Mohd Javed, as petitioner, to appear before the committee." The committee hearing was scheduled for 2:30 PM on the time of writing, the meeting of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting committee was underway, with representatives of the filmmaker, a representative of Kanhaiya Lal's son, members of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, and the lawyer for the accused Mohammad Javed in Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Mohammad Javed, said the film dealt with two sub judice matters - the Kanhaiya Lal murder case and the Gyanvapi case."The movie portrays the judiciary as well in a certain way. The movie is bordering on hate, and bringing the judiciary into disrepute. There is much at stake. They can't claim free speech to violate fair trial or lower judiciary's reputation."She said, "It is something that generates violence. It's vilification of a community. Not one positive aspect about the community shown."Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, said, "When HC asked us, I personally saw the movie. I was shaken in every sense of the word. If any judge were to see it, they will be shocked. Its complete theme is of hate against the community... Not one positive aspect about the community shown... homosexuality, judicial matters, treatment of women... A democratic nation certifying such movie... unimaginable.""I had watched the movie... It's a thematic dissertation of hate... I am normally on the other side to say it should not be stopped... Please see the movie. It is something that generates violence-seeds violence-it's vilification of an entire community-violence, hate, homosexuality, denigration of women, child abuse by one community-unthinkable that a democratic nation would allow such a movie to be certified," Sibal Kant responded, "Our judicial officers are not school-going children that they can be swayed by movie dialogues... absolutely confident about their objectivity... sense of detachment." He also said, "I was wondering how Mr Sibal found time to see the movie."advertisementSenior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the producers, told the court, "I got a valid certificate from CBFC... they didn't go to the valid authority... went to the High Court on the last date without even disclosing legitimate interest."He said, "My film was supposed to release at midnight. The order came at 8 pm. Nearly 1,750 theatres across India had booked the movie. We lost six crucial days."He also submitted that "the producer and director of the film as well as the son of the victim who was brutally murdered in 2022 are getting repeated threats to their life." The court directed the police to assess the threat perception and take steps to protect Kant said, "Balance of convenience is in their favor... if movie is released, it can lead to irreparable loss... but if there is delay, you can be compensated." The court noted that Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act gave the central government the power to suspend or revoke court observed, "If the film is released then both these pleas are infructuous... the revision petition before the government is also infructuous."It added, "We have impressed on the counsels for the parties to join the proceedings before the government committee and extend their cooperation for speedy disposal."The Delhi High Court had earlier said, "The high court vide impugned judgment has not expressed any opinion on the merits, especially regarding the allegations regarding content of the movie." The order was passed in a batch of pleas, including one filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, who contended that the film was communally Lal Teli, an Udaipur-based tailor, was murdered in June 2022, allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous, who claimed it was in retaliation for a social media post in support of former BJP leader Nupur Sharma. The case was taken up by the National Investigation Agency and is under trial before a special NIA court in Jaipur. The film is based on these events.- Ends
