Dark Mode
Image
Logo

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In 2023 Parliament Security Breach UAPA Case | Says Protest Was Political Dissent Not Terrorist Act | Bars Them From Giving Interviews

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In 2023 Parliament Security Breach UAPA Case | Says Protest Was Political Dissent Not Terrorist Act | Bars Them From Giving Interviews

Safiya Malik

 

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted bail to two individuals who had been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Court held that the allegations and material on record did not prima facie satisfy the ingredients of Sections 15 or 18 of the UAPA. Consequently, the Court directed the release of the appellants on bail, subject to specific conditions. The Court clarified that its analysis was restricted to examining whether the material on record made out a prima facie case under UAPA for the limited purpose of considering bail and did not touch upon the merits of the case.

 

The case arose from an incident that occurred on 13 December 2023 in and around the Indian Parliament premises. According to the Prosecution, during the live telecasted proceedings of the Lok Sabha, two individuals, later identified as Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D, jumped from the public gallery into the Lok Sabha main hall, released smoke canisters, and shouted slogans. This act allegedly triggered panic and led to the adjournment of proceedings.

 

Also Read: Supreme Court : Article 20 of the Concession Agreements| Not An Arbitration Clause | Lacks Judicial Element And Finality | Warns Legal Fraternity Against Ambiguous Dispute Resolution Drafting

 

Simultaneously, outside Gate Nos. 2 and 3 of the Parliament, the appellant in CRL.A. 263/2025, Neelam Ranolia, along with another accused Amol Shinde, reportedly released similar smoke canisters and distributed pamphlets. They were apprehended by Delhi Police. During the subsequent investigation, further suspects, including Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat (the appellant in CRL.A. 388/2025), were identified and arrested or surrendered to the police. FIR No. 142/2023 was registered at Police Station Parliament Street under Sections 186, 353, 153, 452, 201, 34, and 120B of the IPC, and Sections 13, 16, and 18 of the UAPA.

 

The Prosecution alleged a premeditated conspiracy by six individuals to disrupt Parliament proceedings. According to the Prosecution, Manoranjan D was the central figure who ideologically motivated others. It was submitted that Manoranjan and Sagar Sharma began recruiting individuals via social media from as early as 2015. Multiple meetings were held between 2022 and 2023 across locations including Mysuru, Gurugram, and Hisar. The objective, as per the Prosecution, was to create chaos in Parliament and gain national and international attention.

 

During one of the meetings in Mysuru, ideas such as using smoke canisters and setting oneself on fire with fire-protectant gel were allegedly discussed. A witness, Mandeep, who later quit the group, provided a statement under Section 164 CrPC affirming the discussions in the meeting. Another witness, Parth Gohil, corroborated this account and mentioned that the Signal app was used to maintain secrecy.

 

The Prosecution claimed that the smoke canisters were purchased from a shop in Mumbai, and specially modified shoes were bought in Lucknow to conceal the canisters. Meetings were held to finalize execution details, including the planned timing of the protest on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack. The Prosecution submitted that the use of yellow smoke inside and outside Parliament, the slogans, and video recordings were all part of a calculated attempt to cause terror.

 

In opposition, counsel for the appellants argued that the actions, even if taken at face value, did not satisfy the criteria under UAPA. They submitted that the actions neither caused nor intended to cause death, injury, or significant property damage. They also pointed out that the pamphlets used contained patriotic quotes and lacked content advocating violence or inciting terror.

 

Regarding Mahesh Kumawat, counsel submitted that he was not present in Delhi on the date of the incident and that his call data records proved his location in Rajasthan. It was also argued that he did not attend the final meetings where the execution of the plan was discussed.

 

A statement from the Lok Sabha Secretariat was placed on record, confirming that no injuries to MPs or staff were reported in the aftermath of the incident. Furthermore, a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report indicated that while the canisters contained materials commonly used in smoke bombs, their explosive nature, if any, was a matter to be determined at trial.


The Court noted: "The facts of the case reveal that the accused chose the Parliament to raise their voice. The Parliament represents the very basis of our Democracy. It cannot be said that what the accused have done is a legitimate form of protest or demonstration." However, the Court also observed: "The Appellants have not propagated any movement which can be said to be against the interest of the nation."

 

While examining the applicability of UAPA, the Court stated: "The activities of the Appellants are of the nature of propagation of ideological messages and in the opinion of this Court prima facie do not constitute a terrorist act and does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 15 or 18 of UAPA Act."

 

Addressing the chemical nature of the smoke canisters, the Court recorded: "The smoke canisters have been purchased from the market and are freely available. Had these canisters generated any substance which can cause death or serious injury, they would not be freely available in the market."

 

Regarding the appellant Neelam Ranolia, the Court noted: "The material on record at this juncture shows that she was not inclined to enter into the Parliament and chose to protest outside the Parliament which is a major distinguishing factor." The Court added: "The pamphlets which have been seized from the Appellant do not indicate that it abets, advises or facilitates the commission of a terrorist act."

 

As for Mahesh Kumawat, the Court recorded: "The Appellant in CRL.A. 388/2025 was not in Delhi and who had not attended the last two meetings, has not done any act satisfying the ingredients of Section 15 or 18 of the UAPA."

 

On the broader legal standard for granting bail under UAPA, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Kekhriesatuo Tep, noting: "The words used in Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA are 'prima facie'... the degree of satisfaction to be recorded by the Court for opining that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true, is lighter than the degree of satisfaction to be recorded for considering a discharge application or framing of charges."

 

The Court also stated: "At this juncture, it can be only said that attempt was to sensationalise the event to gain attention of people and get mileage from the incident. However, this fact alone will not deter this Court from granting bail at this juncture."


The Court directed that the appellants be released on bail subject to the following conditions: The Appellants shall furnish securities in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

 

The Appellants are directed not to give any interviews or hold any press conference or address media.

 

The Appellants are directed not to post anything on any social media/e-media platform related to the incident.

 

The Appellants are directed to continue to reside at the address given in the Memo of Parties before this Court and in case there is any change in the address of the Appellants, the Appellants are directed to intimate the same to the Investigating Officer.

 

The Appellants are directed not to leave the city of Delhi without prior permission of the concerned Court.

 

The Appellants are directed to report to the local police station on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 10:00 AM and the Appellants shall be released within an hour after completing the formalities.

 

Also Read: Goods Confiscated Under Section 130 Of GST Act Can Be Released | Kerala High Court Allows Release During Appeal If Not Auctioned

 

The Appellants are directed to give their mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times.

 

The Appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses in any manner.

 

The Appellants shall attend all the Court proceedings.

 

In case it is established that the Appellants have violated the conditions of bail, the bail granted to the Appellants shall stand cancelled forthwith.

 

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Balraj Singh Malik, Mr. Amrit Singh, Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi, Advocates; Mr. Somarjuna V M, Mr. Vivek Kumar, Mr. Dinakar M P, Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for the State; Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ms. Smriti Maheshwari, Ms. Diksha Suri, Ms. Samridhi Dobhal, Mr. Krishna, Mr. Hritwik Maurya, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Ms. Urja Pandey, Advocates; ACP Rahul Vikram, SI Amit Bhati


Case Title: Neelam Ranolia alias Neelam Prajapat alias Neelam Azad v. State NCT of Delhi; Mahesh Kumawat v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5190-DB

Case Number: CRL.A. 263/2025 & CRL.A. 388/2025

Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

 

Comment / Reply From