Parliament security breach Police moves court, seeks consent for polygraph test

New Delhi : The Delhi Police on Thursday moved a court here seeking permission to conduct the polygraph test of all six people arrested in connection with the Parliament security breach matter.

The application was moved before Additional Sessions Judge Hardeeep Kaur, who posted the matter for January 2, noting that the counsel representing some of the accused was not present. Police had also brought the six accused before the court during the hearing of the plea. The accused, Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, Neelam Devi, Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat, are currently in police custody till January 5.

The Delhi police, represented by Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, had earlier told the court that “the attack was well planned.” He had further submitted before the court that the custodial interrogation of the accused was required to find out the “actual motive behind the attack,” and if they had any association with any other enemy country or terror organisations.

In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, two persons -- Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D -- jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters and shouted slogans before they were overpowered by the MPs. Around the same time, two other accused -- Amol Shinde and Neelam Devi -- sprayed coloured gas from canisters while shouting “tanashahinahichalegi” outside Parliament premises.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused urgent listing of a plea by Neelam Azad, a woman arrested in the December 13 Parliament security breach case, who alleged that her police remand was illegal as she was not allowed to consult a legal practitioner of her choice to defend her during the trial court proceedings.

The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing by her lawyer before a vacation bench of Justices Neena Bansal Krishna and Shalinder Kaur, which said there was no urgency in the matter. “In any case it will be taken up on 3rd (January). There is no urgency,” the bench said. Azad’s lawyer said she has challenged her remand order and on January 5, her police custody was getting over.

Turning down the request, the court responded there was still “enough time” for the hearing to take place before the remand came to an end. 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 that being disallowed to consult a lawyer of her choice amounted to violation of her fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, making the remand order unlawful.