Delhi court denies bail to accused Mahesh Kumawat in Parliament security breach case

New Delhi [India], November 24 : Delhi's Patiala House court dismissed the bail plea of one Mahesh Kumawat, one of the accused in Parliament security breach case.
Delhi Police have invoked sections of anti-terror law UAPA along with the sections of Indian Penal Code. Kumawat was arrest on December 16, 2023.
While dismissing the bail plea, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Hardeep Kaur said that there are sufficient grounds to believe the allegations against the accused prime facie is true.
"There are sufficient reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations made against accused Mahesh Kumawat are prima facie true. Therefore, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to grant regular bail to accused Mahesh Kumawat and the present bail application stands dismissed," ASJ Kaur ordered on November 22.
The court also noted that charges of conspiracy are also invoked against the accused, therefore, his role cannot be viewed in isolation.
The court said, "As per the material available on record and perusal of the charge-sheet further reveals that prior to committing the alleged terrorist act, meetings were organized where the whole planning to commit the alleged terrorist act was discussed and total five such meetings were conducted from February, 2022 till the day of incident 13.12.2023. Accused Mahesh Kumawat attended all the meetings except the last meeting."
The court noted that it has also come on record that before the incident, the accused persons erased all the data from their mobile phone and handed over their mobile phones alongwith Sim Cards to accused Lalit Jha who along with Mahesh Kumawat destroyed the mobile phones.
The court observed, "As per the analysis of Call Detail Records of the accused persons, they all were continuously in touch with each other during this period. Though it has been contended by learned Defence counsel that applicant/accused parted ways on 6th or 7th December, 2023 and did not participate in the alleged incident."
They rejected the contention and said, "To this count, this Court is of the view that even if accused Mahesh Kumawat was not present at the spot on the date of alleged incident but he was fully aware of commission of alleged incident on 13.12.2023, the date as fixed during the meetings."
"If he had parted way and was not part of the alleged conspiracy, then he should have infact informed the competent authority but he chose to remain silent and infact after the incident, he shared the video of alleged incident on the social media and the said video was given to him by co-accused Manoranjan on whatsapp," the court pointed out.
The counsel for accused had submitted that accused has surrendered before the police on 14.12.2023 but he is shown to have been arrested on 16.12.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody.
Accused's counsel also submitted that provisions of UAPA have been arbitrarily and illegally invoked in the present case and the alleged actions of applicant/accused does not construe an act of terrorism and UAPA is intended to address grave threats like terrorism, extremism or insurgency and in the present case.
The counsel alleged that the investigating agency has wholly ignored the principle of just application of law.
It is further submitted that all accused persons are youth struggling for a job. The intention of the accused was merely to raise his voice and draw attention of the State machinery towards certain issues having grave democratic and political importance and this fact is evident from the nature of slogans raised and contents of pamphlets found in the possession of accused persons inside the parliament.
The action of accused persons while disruptive did not result in loss of life, serious injuries or widespread destruction making it disproportionate to label it as a terrorist act, the counsel argued.
It was also argued that in the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that action of accused persons were intended to fracture "national unity and sovereignty of India".
It is further submitted that prima facie no case under UAPA is made out in the present case by stretch of imagination in so far as no act on the part of applicant/accused amounts to an unlawful activity within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (o) of UAPA nor does any act meet the threshold of terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of UAPA.
The Counsel for accused also argued that no evidence has been placed on record to link the incident with that of threat issued by Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu. Accused was infact not present inside the premises of Parliament or in Delhi and he also conveyed his unwillingness to other accused persons to take part in any such activity. He had voluntarily surrendered before the police and cooperated in the investigation.
On the other hand, Advocate Akhand Pratap Singh, Special public prosecutor (SPP) for Delhi police opposed the bail application and submitted that on 13.12.2023, during live session of Lok Sabha in Parliament, accused Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma started moving towards the well by jumping over the empty seats and opened coloured smoke canisters in the Lok Sabha, as a result, the hall was engulfed in thick, yellow smoke coming out from the canisters and the said act of both the accused persons inflicted terror in the minds of not only the members of Lok Sabha, staff and spectators present in the Lok Sabha but also of the millions who were watching the proceedings live on TV.
It was further submitted that while the above incident was playing inside the Lok Sabha, simultaneously, outside Gate Nos. 2 and 3 of the Parliament building, accused Neelam along with her associate Amol was apprehended from outside the Parliament where they were raising slogans and also opened coloured smoke canisters in full public view alongwith throwing of pamphlets.
During preliminary enquiry, it was revealed that all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, in a premeditated and conspiratorial manner committed the terrorizing act and the act pertains to a larger conspiracy and was committed in pursuance of conspiracy.
It was submitted by the SPP that during investigation, it was revealed that accused alongwith his associates had always been planning a disruptive terror attack in the Parliament. All the accused persons made elaborate efforts to maintain secrecy using end to end apps like Signal as they very well knew that data from Signal app, once the instruments are destroyed, is almost impossible to retrieve.
"All the accused persons consciously erased all data from their social media platform and specifically they tried to destroy all digital evidence before the incident in order to ensure absolute publicity post incident. As per the forensic examination report, accused Manoranjan formatted his laptop," SPP argued.