Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Of Accused Neelam Azad, Details Inside

The High Court bench said the petition was not maintainable.

Parliament Security Breach, Delhi High Court, Neelam Azad, Parliament house, Constitution, FIR, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, UAPA, Lok Sabha, Supreme Court, POCSO Act, Constitution of India
The trial court has remanded her in police custody till January 5. (File)

Parliament Security Breach: A Delhi High Court bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and comprising Justice Manoj Jain on board on Wednesday while listening to a petition filed by Neelam Azad, an accused in the December 13 Parliament security breach case, dismissed the same. Neelam Azad was seeking her release because her police remand was “illegal”. The High Court bench said the petition filed by Neelam Azad which alleged that she was not allowed to consult a lawyer of her choice before the trial court at the time of remand, was not maintainable.

“Petitioner has already moved bail application before the trial court. Present petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly,” observed the bench.

Azad’s lawyer argued the trial court granted her custody to police in violation of the provisions of the Constitution as she was not allowed to consult a legal practitioner of her choice to defend her during the trial court proceedings. Also, the order remanding her in police custody was passed without application of mind.

“I am seeking release on the ground that my fundamental right was violated,” he argued. However, during the hearing, the high court said no case of violation of her fundamental rights was made out.

“This can’t be the ground. Whatever (legal aid) lawyer was there, the trial court passed the order. There is no such right violated. Go to the trial court. Your case is pending there,” the court told the petitioner’s counsel.

The lawyer for the city police said Azad has already filed a bail application seeking her release in the present FIR which concerns offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

The lawyer also contended that the petition was not maintainable, and her police custody was already coming to an end on January 5.

In her petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing her production before the high court as well as an order to “set her at liberty”, Azad said not allowing her to consult a lawyer of her choice amounted to the violation of her fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, making the remand order unlawful. The trial court has remanded her in police custody till January 5.

In a massive security breach on 13 December, the 22nd anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack, two people identified as Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D jumped into Lok Sabha from the visitors’ gallery, started running around the House, and lit up smoke canisters.



FOLLOW US ON GOOGLE NEWS

Read original article here

Denial of responsibility! Todays Chronic is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – todayschronic.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Leave a Comment