New Delhi [India], November 14 : A Delhi court has rejected the regular bail pleas of Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D in the 2023 Parliament security breach case, holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against them were prima facie true.
The court said the allegations were “grave and serious”, noting that the alleged acts had disrupted parliamentary proceedings, caused panic among Members of Parliament and visitors, and, according to the prosecution, threatened the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Special Court (NIA Act/UAPA) Presiding Officer Kiran Bansal passed the order on November 13, dismissing the second regular bail applications filed by the two accused. The State was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh.
The court noted the prosecution’s case that on December 13, 2023, at around 1.01 pm, Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma allegedly jumped from the visitors’ gallery into the Lok Sabha chamber during the proceedings.
According to the prosecution, Sharma then moved towards the Well of the Lok Sabha by jumping over vacant seats before taking out a smoke canister allegedly concealed in his shoe and releasing its contents. Manoranjan also allegedly opened a coloured smoke canister inside the House.
The Lok Sabha chamber was engulfed in thick yellow smoke, triggering panic and bringing the proceedings to an abrupt halt, the prosecution alleged.
The court also noted that the incident inside Parliament was allegedly coordinated with a simultaneous protest outside Gates 2 and 3, where other accused persons allegedly released similar coloured smoke and raised slogans.
Rejecting the accused persons’ plea for parity with co-accused Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who were granted bail by the Delhi High Court in July 2025, the court said their cases stood on a different footing.
The court noted that Neelam had remained outside Parliament and had refused to enter the building, while Mahesh was not in Delhi on the date of the incident and had not attended the group’s last two meetings.
In contrast, the court said, the two present accused had allegedly entered the Parliament building, jumped from the visitors’ gallery into the Lok Sabha chamber and disrupted proceedings after concealing smoke canisters in their shoes.
“Members of Parliament and other persons present inside had panicked,” the court noted.
The prosecution opposed the bail pleas, alleging that the December 13, 2023, incident was the result of a premeditated conspiracy.
According to the investigating agency, the accused had allegedly held several meetings, conducted reconnaissance of Parliament, procured smoke canisters and purchased sports shoes in which cavities were allegedly made to conceal the canisters before taking them inside Parliament.
The prosecution further alleged that the group maintained secrecy by using applications such as Signal, while digital data was erased and SIM cards and mobile phones were destroyed in connection with the alleged conspiracy.
The court took note of the prosecution’s case that the accused had allegedly planned to create a terror-like situation and disrupt Parliament on a date coinciding with the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack.
It said the charge sheets, supplementary charge sheets, witness statements and documentary material placed before the court showed, at the stage of consideration of bail, that the allegations against the two accused were serious.
The court also referred to the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), under which an accused cannot be granted bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.
While the accused had argued that they had been in custody since December 14, 2023, that the investigation had been completed and that the trial was likely to take considerable time, the court said that delay alone could not override the statutory restrictions governing bail under the UAPA.
“Perusal of the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheets reveals that the allegations against the accused persons are grave and serious,” the court said, noting that the material indicated that parliamentary proceedings had been disrupted and panic had been caused among those present inside the Lok Sabha.
Holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against both accused were prima facie true, the court said it did not find this to be a fit case for the grant of regular bail.
The bail applications filed by Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma were accordingly dismissed.