Delhi High Court
Neelam Ranolia Alias Neelam Prajapat … vs State Nct Of Delhi on 2 July, 2025
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 02nd JULY, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.A. 263/2025 & CRL.M.A. 6750/2025
NEELAM RANOLIA ALIAS NEELAM PRAJAPAT ALIAS
NEELAM AZAD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Balraj Singh Malik, Mr. Amrit
Singh, Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi,
Advocates
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr.Laksh Khanna, APP for the State
and Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ms.
Smriti Maheshwari, Ms. Diksha Suri,
Ms. Samridhi Dobhal, Mr. Krishna,
Mr. Hritwik Maurya, Mr. Amit
Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr.
Shubham Sharma, Ms. Urja Pandey,
Advocates
ACP Rahul Vikram, SI Amit Bhati
+ CRL.A. 388/2025 & CRL.M.A. 9422/2025
MAHESH KUMAWAT .....Appellant
Through: Mr Somarjuna V M, Mr Vivek
Kumar, Mr Dinakar M P, Mr Amit
Gupta, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr.Laksh Khanna, APP for the State
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 1 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
and Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, Ms.
Smriti Maheshwari, Ms. Diksha Suri,
Ms. Samridhi Dobhal, Mr. Krishna,
Mr. Hritwik Maurya, Mr. Amit
Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr.
Shubham Sharma, Ms. Urja Pandey,
Advocates
ACP Rahul Vikram, SI Amit Bhati
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. CRL.A. 263/2025 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the
Order dated 11.09.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
02, Patiala House Courts, dismissing I.A. No.01/2024, filed by the Appellant
herein in SC No.253/2024 for grant of bail in FIR No.142/2023, registered at
Police Station Parliament Street for offences under Sections
186/353/153/452/201/34/120B IPC and Sections 13/16/18 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
2. CRL.A. 388/2025 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the
Order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
02, Patiala House Courts, dismissing I.A. No.02/2024, filed by the Appellant
herein in SC No.253/2024 for grant of bail in FIR No.142/2023, registered at
Police Station Parliament Street for offences under Sections
186/353/153/452/201/34/120B IPC and Sections 13/16/18 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 2 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as stated by the Prosecution are
as under:
a. It is stated that on 13.12.2023, after paying homage to the
martyrs of 13.12.2001 terrorist attack on the Parliament of
India, the regular proceedings of Lok Sabha began. The
proceedings were being telecasted and watched live across the
country through Sansad TV channel. It is stated that from 12:00
PM, the Question Hour began in the Lok Sabha. It is stated that
at around 01:01 PM, when Sh. Khagen Murmu, Hon‟ble MP
from Maldah, North-West Bengal was speaking, two persons
jumped from the public gallery No. 4, inside the Lok Sabha
Main Hall, which was out of bound for the visitors, spectators
and public. It is stated that one of those two persons started
moving towards the Well of Lok Sabha by jumping over empty
seats and was later identified as one Sagar Sharma.
b. It is stated that when Sagar Sharma was within some distance of
the Well/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, he was surrounded by the
Parliament staff and some MPs who were present in the
ongoing proceedings. It is stated that finding himself
surrounded, Sagar Sharma took out a canister shaped object
from his shoes and released its contents in the Lok Sabha
Central Hall. The hall was engulfed in thick, yellow smoke
coming out from the canister.
c. It is stated that the second person was identified as one
Manoranjan D. It is further stated that he also opened a
coloured smoke canister inside the Central Hall of the LokSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 3 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
Sabha. With painstaking efforts, both these persons were
restrained and apprehended by Parliament staff along with the
help of MPs.
d. It is stated that the twin emission of thick, coloured smoke
triggered terrorized reactions from amongst those present in the
Lok Sabha. It is stated that the disruptive nature of the incident
brought an end to the ongoing parliamentary discussions, which
were of national significance and the proceedings of Lok Sabha
were immediately adjourned by the Chair. It is stated that the
act had inflicted terror in the minds of not only the members
and spectators present in the Lok Sabha, but also of the millions
who were watching the proceedings live on TV. It is stated that
the terror was evident in the statements of MPs as given to
national media immediately after they had come out of the
Parliament.
e. While the above incident was taking place inside the Lok
Sabha, simultaneously, outside Gate No. 2 and 3 of the
Parliament building, one lady, identified as Neelam
Ranoliya/Appellant in CRL.A. 263/2025, along with one Amol
Shinde, opened similar smoke canisters in full public view and
also threw pamphlets. It is stated that the accused were raising
slogans also. A PCR call was made by PCR staff ASI Surender
Pal and information of the incident was flashed over the police
radio. It is stated that the alert raised by the PCR staff was
recorded vide DD No. 42A and 43A, dated 13.12.2023, at PS
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 4 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
f. Neelam and Amol were apprehended by the Delhi Police staff
deployed outside the Parliament and were brought to Police
Station Parliament Street for enquiry. It is stated that Sh. Omkar
Singh, Deputy Director (S), Lok Sabha handed over a
complaint, along with the custody of accused Manoranjan and
Sagar and also handed over the shoes of both the accused and
their Aadhar cards. It is stated that two used canisters of colour
smoke (yellow), one Lok Sabha Public Gallery Pass bearing
number 15/01/474906, dated 13/12/2023, in the name of Sagar
Sharma, were also handed over to the Delhi Police. It is stated
that the used colour smoke canisters were stated to have been
the ones used by Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D in Well of
the Lok Sabha.
g. It is stated that all the articles i.e., 02 Used Yellow Colour
Smoke Canisters, Aadhar cards of both accused, some
pamphlets, two pairs of shoes, visitor‟s pass of parliament,
along with the accused persons and the complainant, along with
the complaint, were brought to Police Station Parliament Street
for further proceedings.
h. It is stated that during the preliminary enquiry of DD No. 42
and 43, pertaining to accused Neelam Ranoliya and Amol
Shinde, it was revealed that they are associates of accused
Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D and together, they had
committed the act with common intention, in a premeditated
and conspiratorial manner to strike terror. From the spot of
incident outside the Parliament House, the PCR staff hadSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 5 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
collected 04 used and 01 unused smoke canister and the same
were also seized.
i. It is stated that the scene of crime was inspected by the Mobile
Crime Team along with Forensic Assistants of New Delhi
District and further exhibits, as lifted by the Crime Team staff
were also seized.
j. It is stated that based upon the complaint given by Deputy
Director, Security, Lok Sabha and incorporating the halaat as
witnessed outside the Parliament House, an FIR bearing
No.142/2023, at Police Station Parliament Street for offences
under Sections 186/353/153/452/201/34/120B IPC and Sections
16/18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
(UAPA) was registered and all the four accused persons were
arrested. It is stated that during the police custody remand, all
the four accused were interrogated, and it was revealed that one
more person namely Lalit Jha was accompanying them on
13.12.2023 and was assigned the task of video-graphing the act
committed by the accused Neelam Ranoliya and Amol Sinde
and further upload and circulate the video on social media and
to send the video to national as well as international media as an
integral part of the conspiracy.
k. It is stated that during the investigation it was found that all
accused had formatted/erased all data from their mobile phones,
destroyed their SIM Cards before entering the Parliament and
had handed over their mobile phones to Lalit Jha with the task
of burning the phones. It is stated that the preliminary
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 6 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
interrogations also revealed that one Mahesh
Kumawat/Appellant in CRL.A.388/2025 was also a part of the
entire conspiracy.
l. It is stated that the preliminary investigations revealed a
coordinated, premeditated act to commit the terror inside and
outside the Parliament. It is stated that all six accused appeared
well trained in the art of camouflage. It is further stated that the
accused were deceptive and evasive individually as well as
jointly. It is stated that persistent & scientific questioning of the
accused gradually led to the emergence of the central roles of
accused Manoranjan D and Sagar Sharma as being critical
pillars of the larger conspiracy. It is stated that the email
accounts of accused Manoranjan were accessed with the
permission of the Court and it was found that he had
erased/cleaned up a substantial amount of his digital footprint.
Investigations revealed that only two emails which he had sent
to his friends back were traced in 2013. All the trail emails to
these two e-mails were found missing. It is stated that these two
emails provided some insight into the formative life of
Manoranjan. It is stated that deeper analysis of the available old
emails revealed that Manoranjan had also travelled to
Cambodia from 15.01.2014 to 30.08.2014. It is stated that on
28.12.2024, while searching his emails for more information, a
travel memoir was found in one of the folders of the e-mail. It is
stated that the memoir is about his travel from Chennai to
Ladakh on a motorcycle. It is stated that memoir of Manoranjan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 7 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
mirrors the famous „Motorcycle Diaries‟ penned by Che
Guevara. It is stated that in his memoir, Manoranjan mentions
about a Chinese national, Li Rong, who had also travelled with
him during this trip from Hyderabad till Delhi. It is stated that
this memoir and its contents are significant pointers towards the
mindset of Manoranjan and his centrality in the larger
conspiracy. It is stated that in order to gain immediate and far-
reaching attention, Manoranjan decided to target the very
symbol of Indian democracy i.e., the Parliament. It is stated in
order to achieve the goal, Manoranjan started scouting for
people on social media who could become his loyalists and
undertake the venture of assaulting the temple of Indian
democracy. It is stated that Manoranjan assiduously searched
social media for persons who were espousing and advocating
various social and nationalistic causes, with special care to
select those who hailed from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds and mostly lacked formal education. It is stated
that Sagar Sharma, came in touch with Manoranjan through the
Facebook group „Bhagat Singh Club‟. It is stated that when
Manoranjan met Sagar Sharma for the first time in December
2015, he had made a vague mention of something to be done
with the Parliament of India. It is stated that Sagar Sharma
joined Manoranjan in Mysuru sometime in 2021. It is stated
that Sagar Sharma also started scouting for people to join their
cause. It is stated that by this time Manoranjan had given final
shape to his plan of committing the act in the Parliament and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 8 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
had started convincing Sagar Sharma that such a spectacular act
will attract the attention that was required and raise their
profiles not only nationally but internationally. It is stated that
investigations also established that Manoranjan was so
determined in his head about the eventual success of his grand
plans that he was making promises of richness, glory, and
wealth to all those whom he could lure. It was through the
persistent efforts of Sagar Sharma over social media that they
managed to connect some associates and convinced them to
meet physically in Mysuru in February 2022. It is stated that
this was the first semi-organized meeting in a series of meetings
over the past two years before the assault on Parliament was
finally executed. It is stated that in February 2022, a meeting
was planned and organised by Sagar Sharma at the behest of
Manoranjan. It is stated that Sagar Sharma connected with all
the members of this meeting initially over WhatsApp and
subsequently, as per instructions of Manoranjan, over Signal
messenger application. It is stated that in order to make the
meeting meaningful, Sagar invoked the ideals of patriotism,
stressing on the paramount need of secrecy at all times. It is
stated that Manoranjan and Sagar carefully ensured that all the
members they were inducing to join their cause belonged to
economically lower strata of the society, possessed limited
education and, as far as possible, represented different parts of
the country. It is stated that in the meeting, Manoranjan
proposed the idea of disruption of the present system of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 9 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
Constitutionally ordained governance by creating chaos and
disruption in the Parliament which will help them gain media
attention. It is stated that to convince the gathering, Manoranjan
had made them watch a video of an incident that had taken
place in the Parliament of Kosovo in the year 2018, where tear
gas was used to disrupt the proceedings. It is stated that in this
meeting, Manoranjan also proposed other ideas like setting
oneself on fire after applying fire protectant gel and usage of
tear smoke. It is stated that Manoranjan also drew a rough
sketch of the Indian Parliament and had conveyed his ideas in
great details about what was coming towards their eventual path
to glory, wealth and fame. It is stated that one of the
participants of this meeting, who quit this group post the
meeting, is witness Mandeep. It is stated that in his statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr PC, the witness has affirmed the
abovementioned brief of the meeting. It is stated that another
participant of this meeting, Parth Gohil, in his statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr PC, stated that Manoranjan had
exhorted them to download Signal application. It is stated that
amongst the varying ideas of Manoranjan, as conveyed in this
meeting, the consistent theme was his focus on creating terror
like situation in the Parliament of India. It is stated that the
group maintained complete secrecy of the happenings.
m. It is stated that the next meeting of the group was organised in
July, 2022 in Gurugram, Haryana as most members belonged to
northern parts of the country. It is stated that in the second
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 10 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
meeting, discussions were mostly centred around how to recruit
more members to the group and how to ensure inclusion of a
woman member so as to bring in gender equality towards the
greater object of disrupting the Parliament of India. It is stated
that after the second meeting, only Manoranajn, Sagar, Amol,
Lalit and Mahesh continued with the pursuit whilst everyone
else quit. It is stated that those who stayed with Manoranjan
started looking for a woman member and contacted Neelam
(Appellant in CRL.A.263/2025) in the process. It is stated that
Sagar Sharma travelled to Jind, Haryana, to recruit Neelam
Ranolia. It is stated that one Ramnivas and Mahaveer, who
were acquaintances of Neelam and were present during the
conversation she had with Sagar Sharma had advised Neelam
against joining the group, finding its activities suspicious in
nature. However, Neelam decided to join them nonetheless and
started having conference calls on the Signal group. It is stated
that with Neelam on board, Sagar and Manoranajn actively
started pursuing the execution of their plan and begin to collect
the materials required. It is stated that the Investigation revealed
that on 24.07.2023, Manoranjan came to Delhi to carry out a
recce of the Parliament. It is stated that Manoranjan procured a
pass through the office of the then Mysuru MP and on
25.07.2023 he visited the Parliament, making close
observations of the security apparatus functioning there. It is
stated that he sat in the visitor‟s gallery, assessing the risks
involved in carrying out the plan. It is also stated that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 11 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
Manoranjan also went around the Parliament premises and its
outer periphery for further assessments and refining the plan. It
is stated that Manoranjan travelled to Hisar to meet Neelam
Ranoliya and obtained her commitment for participation in the
plan. It is stated that Neelam, being a woman, was an important
aspect of Manoranjan‟s strategy to avert any suspicion. It is
stated that Sagar Sharma had procured smoke canisters on
11.07.2023 from a shop named „Supreme Mehndi and
Fireworks‟, located near Kurla West station and later, had
returned on 15.07.2023 to buy a few more canisters of a colour
different from the one earlier purchased. It is stated that Amol
Shinde had again gone to the same shop to buy Smoke canisters
on 16.09.2023. It is stated that Amol Shinde purchased two pair
of sports shoes from „Sidana Footwear Shop‟, Natkhera Road,
Alam Bagh, Lucknow for carving out cavities in their sole to
carry the canisters inside in a concealed fashion. It is stated that
the shoes were later recovered from the incident spot and
seized.
n. It is stated that between 07.08.2023 and 11.08.2023, all the six
accused visited Delhi to discuss the plan in detail. It is stated
that while discussing the plan, they were fully and consciously
aware of their actions; there was a clear reference in the
conversations that the disruption of Parliament may even prove
fatal if there is retaliatory police action. It is stated that sensing
danger Neelam retracted from entering inside the Parliament
but pledged complete support to the plan and volunteered to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 12 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
replicate the actions being carried out inside the Parliament at a
nearby location, i.e. outside the Parliament. It was decided that
Lalit and Mahesh will make a video of the entire incident and
upload it on various internet-based forums and groups for
immediately sensationalizing the matter. It is stated that even
though the Parliament building is open for visitors during its
recess periods also, the plan was to strike right on the day when
Parliament would be mourning and observing silence in
memory of the 2001 Parliament attack. It is stated that after the
meeting all the accused went back to their native places and
decided to return back to Delhi in December.
o. It is stated that on 08.12.2023, Lalit forwarded a digital poster
to Amol Shinde which contained a threat call given by a
designated terrorist – Gurpatwant Singh Pannu to attack the
Parliament building on the anniversary of Parliament Attack.
p. It is stated that in the run-up to the actual incident the accused
started reaching Delhi. It is stated that on 11.12.2023, Sagar
reached New Delhi Railway Station at around 4:00 PM from
Lucknow by train and went to the address of one Vicky Sharma
at H. No. 67, Sector 7, Housing Board Colony, Gurugram. It is
stated that Neelam and Amol Shinde also arrived at the same
house on the same date. It is stated that in the intervening night
of 11- 12.12.2023, Lalit Jha reached the residence of Vicky
Sharma at around 02:00 AM from Kolkata, via train. It is stated
that all the four accused stayed at the residence of Vicky in
Gurugram. It is stated that Manoranjan reached Gurugram on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 13 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
12.12.2023. It is stated that on 13.12.2023 Sagar Sharma
collected the visitor‟s pass which was eventually used to enter
the Parliament. It is stated that on 13.12.2023 at around 10:00
am Manoranjan, Amol Shinde, Lalit Jha, and Neelam Ranoliya
reached Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, traveling by road, using
public transport. It is stated that Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan
entered the Parliament House building using their visitors‟ pass
and Neelam Ranoliya and Amol Shinde placed themselves
outside Parliament Gate Number 2 and 3. It is stated that Lalit
Jha was assigned the task of recording the activities of Amol
Shinde and Neelam. It is stated that after the incident Neelam
and Amol were arrested by Police and Lalit Jha left the spot.
q. FIR No.142/2023, was registered at Police Station Parliament
Street for offences under Sections
186/353/153/452/201/34/120B IPC and Sections 16/18 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and all the
four accused persons were arrested.
r. The investigation was handed-over to Special Cell on
14.12.2023.
s. On 15.12.2023 accused Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat
(Appellant in CRL.A.388/2025) surrendered before the Police
authorities.
t. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on
07.06.2024.
u. The Appellants herein filed several bail applications which
were dismissed by the Trial Court. The last such application,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 14 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
filed by the Appellant in CRL.A.263/2025 was dismissed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge vide Order dated 11.09.2024.
A similar application, filed by the Appellant in CRL.A.
288/2025 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge vide Order dated 21.11.2024.
v. It is these orders which have been challenged by the Appellants
in the present Appeals.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in CRL.A. 263/2025 states that the
allegations against the Appellant do not bring the case within the four
corners of UAPA. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 15
and 18 of the UAPA which is reproduced as under:-
“15. Terrorist act.–
(1) Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or
likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security
[economic security,] or sovereignty of India or with
intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the
people or any section of the people in India or in any
foreign country,–
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive
substances or inflammable substances or firearms or
other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases
or other chemicals or by any other substances
(whether biological radioactive, nuclear or
otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other
means of whatever nature to cause or likely to
cause–
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons;
or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of,
property; or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 15 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services
essential to the life of the community in India or in
any foreign country; or
[(iii-a) damage to, the monetary stability of India
by way of production or smuggling or circulation
of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency,
coin or of any other material; or]
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in
India or in a foreign country used or intended to
be used for the defence of India or in connection
with any other purposes of the Government of
India, any State Government or any of their
agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of
criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of
any public functionary or attempts to cause death of
any public functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and
threatens to kill or injure such person or does any
other act in order to compel the Government of India,
any State Government or the Government of a foreign
country or [an international or inter-governmental
organisation or any other person to do or abstain from
doing any act; or]
commits a terrorist act.
[Explanation.–For the purpose of this sub-section,–
(a) “public functionary” means the constitutional
authorities or any other functionary notified in the
Official Gazette by the Central Government as
public functionary;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 16 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
(b) “high quality counterfeit Indian currency”
means the counterfeit currency as may be declared
after examination by an authorised or notified
forensic authority that such currency imitates
compromises with the key security features as
specified in the Third Schedule.](2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes
an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of
the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.
xxx
18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc.–Whoever
conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets,
advises or [incites, directs or knowingly facilitates] the
commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to
the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than five years but which may extend to imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
5. He states that since none of the acts done by the Appellant falls
within the scope of Section 15 or 18 of the UAPA, these activities cannot
come within the ambit of conspiracy or an attempt to commit, or advocate,
abet, advise or incite, directly or knowingly facilitate the commission of a
terrorist act.
6. He, therefore, states that since the provisions of UAPA are not
attracted, the Appellant is entitled to grant of bail as no prima facie case can
be said to be made against her. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also
drawn the attention of this Court to the pamphlets which were seized inside
the Parliament to state that the pamphlets do not indicate that it was intended
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 17 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
to threaten the sovereignty, integrity of India or divide the country. He states
that the material on the pamphlets was rather patriotic in nature. The said
pamphlet reads as under:
“अभी भी जिसका खून न खौला, वो खून नही पानी है , िो
दे श के काम न आए, वो बेकार िवानी है ”
English translation reads as under:
“Even now, if your blood does not boil, it’s not
blood, but water; and if your youth is not dedicated
to the service of the nation, it is wasted youth”.
It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the quote written on
the pamphlet was given by Freedom Fighter Chandra Shekhar Azad.
7. It is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in
CRL.A. 388/2025 that the Appellant was nowhere near the Parliament on
the date of the incident and goes on to state that the Appellant was not even
in territory of Delhi. He states that as per the call detail records of the
Appellant, on the day of the incident, the Appellant was in Rajasthan.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant also draws the attention of this Court to
the chargesheet to state that the Appellant did not participate in the incident.
He states that he was not even a part of the last two meetings organized by
Manoranjan D. to finalise the details.
8. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the statement given by
the Lok Sabha Secretariat wherein in an answer to a question as to whether
any MP/staff or any other member of the House suffered any injury during
the incident, it was reported that no case of injury to any MP/staff of the
Parliament or their hospitalization or medical treatment was reported to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 18 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
Welfare Branch of the Parliament. The learned Counsel contends that it was
only a protest/demonstration which does not attract any of the provisions of
UAPA, which would disentitle the Appellant to grant of bail.
9. Per contra, learned ASG vehemently contends that the accused had
specifically chosen the date of 13th December as on that day all the Members
of Parliament would be present in the Parliament to pay homage to the
martyrs who laid their life in the Parliament attack which took place on
13.12.2001. He states that the yellow smoke was noxious in nature and had
chemicals in it which caused injury to the MPs inasmuch as the eyes of the
MPs were burning. He also states that because of the incident, the MPs were
terrorised. He states that the purpose of the incident was to overawe the
Government. He further states that the Parliament is not a place to stage
demonstrations and the choice of 13th December to commit the incident
inside the Parliament would mean that it was meant to strike terror. He
further states that on 13.12.2023, the Parliament was on high alert as a
message had been received that terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu was
planning to attack the Parliament House on that day. He states that this is not
a case of a prank gone wrong or a case of a simple demonstration or protest.
He states that the incident was an attempt to overawe the Government using
criminal force and, therefore, the Appellants have committed a terrorist act
under Section 15(1)(b) of the UAPA. Learned ASG places reliance on
Section 350 of the IPC which defines criminal force.
10. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the Appellants and the
learned ASG appearing on behalf of the State.
11. The facts of the case reveals that on 13.12.2023, after paying homage
to the martyrs of terrorist attack which took place on 13.12.2001 in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 19 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
Parliament of India, the regular proceedings of Lok Sabha began and at
about 01:01 PM, two persons jumped from the public gallery No. 4, inside
the Lok Sabha main hall and started moving towards the Well of Lok Sabha
by jumping over empty seats, throwing pamphlets and shouting slogans. The
persons were later identified as Manoranjan and Sagar Sharma. They both
took out canister shaped objects and released its contents in the Lok Sabha
Central Hall because of which the whole Hall was engulfed in thick, yellow
smoke coming out from the canister. At about the same time, the Appellant
in CRL.A.263/2025 along with one Amol Shinde, who were outside the
Parliament building, committed the same act, which was photographed by
the media personnel. The incident outside the Parliament building was video
graphed by accused Lalit Jha. Manoranjan, Sagar, Amol Shinde and the
Appellant in CRL.A.263/2025 were arrested and were produced before the
Court. Lalit Jha and the Appellant in CRL.A.388/2025 surrendered before
the Police Authorities on 15.12.2025.
12. Material on record reveals that the plan to stage a protest inside the
Parliament was hatched in February, 2022 and meetings were organized by
Sagar Sharma at the behest of Manoranjan. It is stated that in the said
meeting, Manoranjan proposed the idea of disruption of the present system
of Constitutionally ordained governance by creating chaos and disruption in
the Parliament which will help them gain media attention. Material on
record further reveals that in the second meeting, discussions were held for
inclusion of a woman member to bring in gender equality towards the
greater goal of disrupting the Parliament. Material on record reveals that
after the second meeting, only Manoranajn, Sagar, Amol, Lalit and Mahesh
continued with the plan whilst everyone else quit. Appellant in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 20 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
CRL.A.263/2025 came in touch with the accused and joined the group. The
facts of the case further reveals that meetings were held from 07.08.2023 to
11.08.2023, all the six accused visited Delhi to discuss the plan and micro-
details of the plan were finalised. The idea of the accused was to disrupt the
Parliament.
13. The Status Report reveals that the Appellant – Neelam Ranolia in
CRL.A.263/2025 refused to enter the Parliament but pledged complete
support to the plan and volunteered to replicate the actions being carried out
inside the Parliament at a nearby location, i.e. outside the Parliament. Lalit
and Mahesh were to make the video of the incident and upload it on various
internet-based forums and groups for immediately sensationalizing the
matter. The plan was put in action.
14. The short question which arises for consideration is as to whether the
Appellants herein should be granted bail or not under UAPA.
15. The parameters of bail under Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA has now
been crystallized by the Apex Court in a number of judgments. In
Kekhriesatuo Tep v. NIA, (2023) 6 SCC 58, the Apex Court has held that
while deciding a bail petition filed by the accused against whom offences
under Chapters IV and VI of the said Act have been made, the court has to
consider as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against the accused is prima facie true. The Apex Court has held
that the words used in Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA are “prima facie” while
the words used in TADA, MCOCA and NDPS Act are “not guilty”. The
Apex Court has held that the degree of satisfaction required in a case of “not
guilty” under TADA, MCOCA and NDPS is much stronger than the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 21 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
satisfaction required in a case where the words used are “prima facie” in
UAPA.
16. In NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, the Apex
Court has held as under:
“23. …………
By its very nature, the expression “prima facie true”
would mean that the materials/evidence collated by the
investigating agency in reference to the accusation
against the accused concerned in the first information
report, must prevail until contradicted and overcome
or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it,
shows the complicity of such accused in the
commission of the stated offence. It must be good and
sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the
chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unless
rebutted or contradicted. In one sense, the degree of
satisfaction is lighter when the Court has to opine
that the accusation is “prima facie true”, as
compared to the opinion of the accused “not guilty”
of such offence as required under the other special
enactments. In any case, the degree of satisfaction to
be recorded by the Court for opining that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation
against the accused is prima facie true, is lighter than
the degree of satisfaction to be recorded for
considering a discharge application or framing of
charges in relation to offences under the 1967 Act
………
24. A priori, the exercise to be undertaken by the
Court at this stage–of giving reasons for grant or
non-grant of bail–is markedly different from
discussing merits or demerits of the evidence. The
elaborate examination or dissection of the evidence is
not required to be done at this stage. The Court is
merely expected to record a finding on the basis of
broad probabilities regarding the involvement of theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 22 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
accused in the commission of the stated offence or
otherwise.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Similarly, in Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 15 SCC 56, the
Apex Court, after making reference to Watali (supra) has held as under:
“46. In Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [NIA v. Zahoor
Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC
(Cri) 383] , it has been held that the expression “prima
facie true” would mean that the materials/evidence
collated by the investigating agency in reference to the
accusation against the accused concerned in the
charge-sheet must prevail, unless overcome or
disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it,
materials must show complicity of such accused in the
commission of the stated offences. What this ratio
contemplates is that on the face of it, the accusation
against the accused ought to prevail. In our opinion,
however, it would not satisfy the prima facie “test”
unless there is at least surface-analysis of probative
value of the evidence, at the stage of examining the
question of granting bail and the quality or probative
value satisfies the court of its worth. In the case of the
appellants, contents of the letters through which the
appellants are sought to be implicated are in the
nature of hearsay evidence, recovered from co-
accused. Moreover, no covert or overt terrorist act has
been attributed to the appellants in these letters, or any
other material forming part of records of these two
appeals. Reference to the activities of the accused are
in the nature of ideological propagation and
allegations of recruitment. No evidence of any of the
persons who are alleged to have been recruited or
have joined this “struggle” inspired by the appellants
has been brought before us. Thus, we are unable to
accept NIA’s contention that the appellants have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 23 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
committed the offence relating to support given to a
terrorist organisation.
47. The second set of materials include the witness
statements. There also no covert or overt act of
terrorism has been attributed to the appellants by the
three witnesses. We have dealt with the summary of
their statements earlier in this judgment. We have also
observed earlier that mere possession of the literature,
even if the content thereof inspires or propagates
violence, by itself cannot constitute any of the offences
within Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act. ”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In a recent Judgment of the Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh v. State
of Punjab, (2024) 5 SCC 403, the Apex Court, while explaining the
Judgement in Watali (supra), has observed as under:
“Test for rejection of bail : Guidelines as laid down by
Supreme Court in Watali case [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad
Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri)
383]
31. In the previous section, based on a textual reading,
we have discussed the broad inquiry which courts
seized of bail applications under Section 43-D(5) of the
UAP Act read with Section 439CrPC must indulge in.
Setting out the framework of the law seems rather easy,
yet the application of it, presents its own complexities.
For greater clarity in the application of the test set out
above, it would be helpful to seek guidance from
binding precedents.
32. In this regard, we need to look no further than
Watali case [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali,
(2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383] which has
laid down elaborate guidelines on the approach thatSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 24 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
courts must partake in, in their application of the bail
limitations under the UAP Act. On a perusal of paras
23 to 24 and 26 to 27, the following 8-point
propositions emerge and they are summarised as
follows:
32.1.Meaning of “prima facie true” : (Watali case
[NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 :
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383] , SCC p. 24, para 23)
On the face of it, the materials must show the
complicity of the accused in commission of the offence.
The materials/evidence must be good and sufficient to
establish a given fact or chain of facts constituting the
stated offence, unless rebutted or contradicted by other
evidence.
32.2.Degree of satisfaction at pre charge-sheet, post
charge-sheet and post-charges — compared : (Watali
case [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5
SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383] , SCC p. 28, para 26)
“26. … once charges are framed, it would be safe to
assume that a very strong suspicion was founded upon
the materials before the Court, which prompted the
Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence
of the factual ingredients constituting the offence
alleged against the accused, to justify the framing of
charge. In that situation, the accused may have to
undertake an arduous task to satisfy the Court that
despite the framing of charge, the materials presented
along with the charge-sheet (report under Section
173CrPC), do not make out reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusation against him is prima facie
true. Similar opinion is required to be formed by the
Court whilst considering the prayer for bail, made
after filing of the first report made under Section 173
of the Code, as in the present case.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 25 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
32.3.Reasoning, necessary but no detailed evaluation
of evidence : (Watali case [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383] ,
SCC p. 27, para 24)
“24. … the exercise to be undertaken by the Court at
this stage–of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of
bail–is markedly different from discussing merits or
demerits of the evidence. The elaborate examination or
dissection of the evidence is not required to be done at
this stage.”
32.4.Record a finding on broad probabilities, not
based on proof beyond doubt : (Watali case [NIA v.
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019)
2 SCC (Cri) 383] , SCC p. 27, para 24)
“The Court is merely expected to record a finding on
the basis of broad probabilities regarding the
involvement of the accused in the commission of the
stated offence or otherwise.”
32.5.Duration of the limitation under Section 43-D(5)
: (Watali case [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali,
(2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383] , SCC p. 27,
para 26)
“26. … the special provision, Section 43-D of the 1967
Act, applies right from the stage of registration of FIR
for the offences under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967
Act until the conclusion of the trial thereof.”
32.6.Material on record must be analysed as a
“whole”; no piecemeal analysis : (Watali case [NIA v.
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2
SCC (Cri) 383] , SCC p. 28, para 27)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 26 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
“27. … the totality of the material gathered by the
investigating agency and presented along with the
report and including the case diary, is required to be
reckoned and not by analysing individual pieces of
evidence or circumstance.”
32.7.Contents of documents to be presumed as true :
(Watali case [NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali,
(2019) 5 SCC 1 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383] , SCC p. 28,
para 27)“27. … The Court must look at the contents of the
document and take such document into account as it
is.”
32.8.Admissibility of documents relied upon by
prosecution cannot be questioned : (Watali case [NIA
v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 :
(2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383] , SCC pp. 24 & 28, paras 23
& 27)The materials/evidence collected by the investigation
agency in support of the accusation against the
accused in the first information report must prevail
until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other
evidence…. In any case, the question of discarding the
document at this stage, on the ground of being
inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible. ”
19. Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court, the established facts
of the case are that the accused chose the Parliament to raise their voice. The
Parliament represents the very basis of our Democracy. It cannot be said that
what the accused have done is a legitimate form of protest or demonstration.
At the same time, the Appellants have not propagated any movement which
can be said to be against the interest of the nation. The activities of theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 27 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
Appellants are of the nature of propagation of ideological messages and in
the opinion of this Court prima facie do not constitute a terrorist act and
does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 15 or 18 of UAPA Act.
20. This Court has also gone through the FSL report dated 27.05.2025.
The opinion of the FSL Report reads as under:
“On the basis of ion chromatography analysis of the
exhibits, it is evident that the exhibits marked as
NFSU/CoE-NDPS/CASE/GCA/01/2024/01 to
NFSU/CoE-NDIPS/CASE/GCA/01/2024/07,
NFSU/COE-NDPS/CASE/GCA/01/2024/10 and
NFSU/CoE-NDPS/CASE/GCA/01/2024/12; contains
residual characteristic of smoke bomb compositions,
such as chloride, nitrate, sulphate, potassium, and
ammonium ions.
The presence of these ions suggests that the materials
commonly used to manufacture smoke bombs, such as
potassium nitrate and ammonium chloride, act as
oxidizers and reactants in the production of smoke.
Additionally, the detection of sulphate ions may
indicate the presence of substances like sulphur or
sulphur-containing compounds, which contribute to the
smoke’s density and opacity.
Therefore, the submitted exhibits may act as
explosives. "
21. At this juncture, this Court is not making any comment on the opinion
of the FSL that the canisters used by the accused persons could have acted
as explosives as this would be a matter of trial. The smoke canisters have
been purchased from the market and are freely available. Had these canisters
generated any substance which can cause death or serious injury, they would
not be freely available in the market. This Court can take judicial notice thatSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 28 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
such canisters are used in IPL games, cricket matches, and in various events
and festivals like weddings, parties, Holi etc. The use of canisters which
emitted yellow smoke alone does not raise a prima facie case against the
Appellants and as to whether those canisters could have acted as explosives
or not will be tested in trial. The quantity of noxious substance in the
canisters and the propensity to cause injury are also a matter of trial. Further,
the Appellant – Mahesh Kumawat in CRL.A. 388/2025 was not in Delhi at
the time of offence and the Appellant – Neelam Ranolia in CRL.A.263/2025
was not inside the Parliament building. The effect of smoke of the canister
in open air is to be decided in trial and at this juncture, it cannot be said that
the smoke from canister can cause any hazardous health injury when used in
open air and anyway the same would be decided in trial.
22. Undoubtedly, the place where the Appellants chose to protest is the
Indian Parliament which is not the most appropriate place to stage the
demonstration. However, the Appellant in CRL.A. 263/2025 did not enter
the Parliament. The material on record at this juncture shows that she was
not inclined to enter into the Parliament and chose to protest outside the
Parliament which is a major distinguishing factor from those persons who
entered inside the Parliament. The pamphlets which have been seized from
the Appellant do not indicate that it abets, advises or facilitates the
commission of a terrorist act. There is nothing on record at this juncture to
show that the Appellants before this Court who have not entered the
Parliament, intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty
of the country or have committed the act with intent to strike terror. Nor it
can be said that the effect of the act is likely to strike terror in the mind of
people or a section of people in India or any foreign country.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 29 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
23. At this juncture, the material on record indicates that at least the
Appellant in CRL.A. 263/2025, who was outside the Parliament, who had
opened the smoke canister, refused to go inside the Parliament and the
Appellant in CRL.A. 388/2025, who was not in Delhi and who had not
attended the last two meetings, has not done any act satisfying the
ingredients of Section 15 or 18 of the UAPA. There is complete lack of
material at this juncture of loss of life, bodily injury or significant property
damage. On the contrary, the statement given by the Lok Sabha Secretariat
categorically state that no injury occurred during the incident and the
Appellant in CRL.A.263/2025, a lady who was outside the Parliament,
cannot be said to have committed any act which could have resulted in loss
of life, bodily injury or significant property damage. The protest is more
symbolic rather than giving apprehension of substantial threat or having
been done with terrorist intent.
24. This case at this juncture appears to be a case of protest and political
dissent. Even though the choice and the place of the protest is highly
deprecable, it cannot be said that ingredients of UAPA are attracted while
considering the issue of grant of bail. Much has been argued by the State
regarding the choice of date. This would be a matter of trial. However, even
assuming that the date was chosen when there was a threat perception, at
this juncture, it can be only said that attempt was to sensationalise the event
to gain attention of people and get mileage from the incident. However, this
fact alone will not deter this Court from granting bail at this juncture. This
Court is only going into the parameters of Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA to
decide whether this is a fit case for grant of bail to the Appellants.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 30 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
25. In the opinion of this Court, the facts of the case do not attract the
parameters of UAPA and, therefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
Appellants on the following conditions:
a) The Appellants shall furnish securities in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
b) The Appellants are directed not to give any interviews or hold
any press conference or address media.
c) The Appellants are directed not to post anything on any social
media/e-media platform related to the incident.
b) The Appellants are directed to continue to reside at the
address given in the Memo of Parties before this Court and in
case there is any change in the address of the Appellants, the
Appellants are directed to intimate the same to the
Investigating Officer.
c) The Appellants are directed not to leave the city of Delhi
without prior permission of the concerned Court.
d) The Appellants are directed to report to the local police
station on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 10:00
AM and the Appellants shall be released within an hour after
completing the formalities;
e) The Appellants are directed to give their mobile numbers to
the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all
times;
f) The Appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with
evidence or try to influence the witnesses in any manner;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 31 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53
g) The Appellants shall attend all the Court proceedings.
h) In case it is established that the Appellants have violated the
conditions of bail, the bail granted to the Appellants shall
stand cancelled forthwith.
26. The appeals are disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.
27. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the
merits of the case.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
HARISH VAIDYANATHANSHANKAR, J
JULY 02, 2025
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. 263/2025 & 388/2025 Page 32 of 32
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:02.07.2025
19:38:53