NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has rejected the second regular bail pleas of Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma, who are accused in the December 2023 Parliament security breach case.
Special NIA Judge Kiran Bansal held that the allegations against the two men under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were prima facie true. The court observed that their alleged actions had disrupted parliamentary proceedings and threatened the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
On December 13, 2023, Manoranjan and Sagar allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors' gallery and released coloured smoke canisters during the proceedings. The incident took place on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack.
The court referred to witness statements recorded during the investigation, which indicated that the accused had attended meetings where the alleged plan was discussed. It also considered the prosecution's claim that they had deleted data from their mobile phones before the incident and handed over their phones and SIM cards to co-accused Lalit Jha, who was allegedly tasked with destroying them.
Seeking bail, the accused argued that they had been in custody since December 14, 2023, and that the investigation had been completed with the filing of the main chargesheet and four supplementary chargesheets. They also submitted that the trial had not progressed beyond the stage of framing charges and could take considerable time to conclude.
The defence argued that releasing coloured smoke canisters did not constitute a terrorist act under the UAPA. They also cited the Delhi High Court's July 2025 order granting bail to co-accused Neelam Ranoliya and Mahesh Kumawat.
Rejecting the parity argument, the court said the circumstances of the two co-accused were different. It noted that Neelam had remained outside Parliament and refused to enter the building, while Mahesh was not in Delhi on the day of the incident and had not attended the group's final two meetings.
The court contrasted their roles with those attributed to Manoranjan and Sagar, who allegedly entered the Parliament building and jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber with smoke canisters concealed in their shoes.
Invoking Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the court said bail could not be granted if the material on record provided reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations were prima facie true. It also held that delay in the trial, by itself, was not sufficient grounds for bail under the provision.
The judge, however, acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which recognises that constitutional courts can grant bail in appropriate cases despite statutory restrictions. The court noted that the case was pending consideration of charges and that special exclusive courts had been established to expedite UAPA trials.
After examining the chargesheets, witness statements and other material, the court dismissed the bail applications. It clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not affect the final determination of the case.
(With inputs from media reports)