Azad and Kumawat had challenged a lower court’s decision rejecting their earlier bail pleas
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, two of the accused in the December 2023 Parliament security breach case, but imposed strict conditions, including a ban on speaking to the media or posting about the case on social media.
A bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar released the duo on personal bonds of ₹50,000 each, along with two sureties. “They shall not give interviews or make any statement regarding the case before the press or on social media. They shall not leave Delhi and must appear before the investigating agency every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,” the court said.
Azad and Kumawat had challenged a lower court’s decision rejecting their earlier bail pleas. The trial court had observed that there was sufficient evidence to support the allegations, which it said appeared to be “prima facie true”. The Delhi Police opposed the bail, alleging that the incident was designed to revive the traumatic memories of the 2001 Parliament attack.
The breach occurred on 13 December 2023 — the anniversary of the 2001 terror attack on Parliament. During the incident, co-accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D. allegedly jumped from the public gallery into the Lok Sabha chamber during Zero Hour. They reportedly released yellow gas from canisters and shouted slogans before being overpowered by MPs.
Simultaneously, Azad and another accused, Amol Shinde, were said to have released coloured gas from canisters outside the Parliament complex while shouting slogans including “tanashahi nahi chalegi” (dictatorship won’t work).
Delhi Police have described the incident as a premeditated attempt to undermine democratic institutions. According to their preliminary findings, Azad and Shinde were allegedly working in coordination with Sharma and Manoranjan, and together carried out what police called a “terror act”. Kumawat was arrested on 16 December on charges including criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence.
The court had earlier asked the police to clarify whether the use of smoke canisters — either inside or outside Parliament — would trigger provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and if such actions could fall under the legal definition of a terrorist act.
The case has reignited debate around the balance between protest, security, and the boundaries of democratic expression.
