A Delhi court has dismissed the second regular bail applications filed by Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D, accused in the December 2023 Parliament security breach case, holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were prima facie true.

Special NIA Judge Kiran Bansal observed that the alleged acts of the accused had disrupted parliamentary proceedings and threatened the sovereignty and integrity of India. The court noted that witness statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicated that the accused had held meetings where the alleged terrorist act was planned and discussed.

The court further observed that the accused had allegedly planned to create a terror-like situation inside Parliament on December 13, 2023, the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament attack. It also took note of the prosecution’s allegation that the accused had erased data from their mobile phones before the incident and handed over their phones and SIM cards to co-accused Lalit Jha for destruction.

The accused had argued that they had been in custody since December 14, 2023, the investigation was complete and the trial was likely to take considerable time. They also contended that the ingredients of a terrorist act under the UAPA were not attracted and relied on the bail granted to co-accused Neelam Ranolia and Mahesh Kumawat by the Delhi High Court in July 2025.

Rejecting the plea for parity, the court noted that the circumstances of the co-accused were materially different. It observed that Neelam Ranolia had remained outside Parliament and refused to enter the building, while Mahesh Kumawat was not in Delhi on the date of the incident and had not attended the last two meetings of the group.

In contrast, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D had allegedly entered the Parliament building, jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors’ gallery and released smoke canisters concealed in their shoes, disrupting proceedings and causing panic among those present.

The court held that the statutory restriction under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA applied, as the material on record provided reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations were prima facie true. It further observed that bail could not be granted solely on the ground of delay in trial, while noting that constitutional courts could grant relief in appropriate cases by relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, 2021 INSC 50.