The Delhi Police Special Cell suspects Manoranjan D,  one of the six people arrested in the Parliament security breach, to be the mastermind behind the conspiracy, hatched to send a message to the ruling government by doing "something big," said a source privy to the probe. In a related development, the Delhi High Court on Friday stayed a trial court's order directing the city police to supply a copy of the FIR to an accused in the Parliament security breach case.

According to police, Lalit Jha, another accused, has revealed to the interrogators that Manoranjan was the one who motivated other members to do something big and planned the breach in the parliament. However, his, Jha's, role was only to destroy the evidence after the act. Manoranjan was arrested along with Sagar from inside the parliament on December 13. Both had jumped into the well of the Lok Sabha and opened yellow colour canisters hidden in their shoes. Manoranjan, a native of Mysore, had quit engineering to engage in social work. Though he was unemployed, he managed to visit Cambodia, the source said.

Jha was produced before the court on Friday from where he was sent to 14 days of police custody. Police told the court that they needed to confront Jha with other accused and collect scientific and digital evidence related to the case. According to the source, Jha told police that Manoranjan had sent tickets to him and others on WhatsApp to come to Mysore in Karnataka a year ago. Another officer said the doctors on Friday started conducting the psychoanalysis tests on all six.

The accused were taken to a forensic lab where they underwent the test, which is supposed to help interrogators ascertain their mental condition, the person said.

Police said the accused have revealed that they were upset with unemployment and the farmer and Manipur crisis.  They are yet to reveal the proper sequence and reason behind their act inside and outside Parliament, police said.

In a related development, the Delhi High Court stayed the trial court's order directing the city police to supply a copy of the FIR to Neelam Devi, after the counsel for police contended that in sensitive matters like these an accused has to approach the police commissioner who forms a committee to decide the application for providing a copy of the FIR and, if it is denied, they can move the court for relief.

The high court noted the submission of the police that it is a case of “sensitive nature”, and as per a judgment of the Supreme Court, the FIRs in sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, and offences under POCSO Act are not to be uploaded on website of the authorities.

 Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to accused Neelam Devi on the police's plea challenging the trial court's December 21 order directing the probe agency to furnish a copy of the FIR to the counsel for the accused as per law.  “This court, having considered the directions contained in the Supreme Court order, is of the opinion that as per the statement made at bar, section 16 and 18 of the UAPA have also been invoked against the present accused person, therefore, the FIR is not to be uploaded. In addition to the same, as per this judgment itself and the mandate of the directions the copy of the same could not have been given to the accused without following the procedure laid down….

 “In view thereof, the execution of the order dated December 21 stands stayed till the next date of hearing, that is, January 4. Issue notice to the accused for the next date,” the high court said. Delhi government standing counsel (Criminal) Sanjay Lau contended that in sensitive matters, the accused has to approach the police commissioner who forms a committee to decide the application for providing a copy of the FIR and, if it is denied, they can move the court for relief.

 However, the trial court erred in directing the police to provide the FIR copy to the accused and overlooked and bypassed the judgment of the Supreme Court as per which FIR cannot be supplied to the accused in sensitive cases.

“This is happening in several cases, the order of the Supreme Court is being flouted. This is a very sensitive matter, the security of Parliament has been breached by some persons.

“This is a second or third case where such directions have been passed and now the higher authorities want to challenge in the high court,” the police's counsel said.