Neelam Azad, one of the co-accused in the parliament security breach case, has moved a plea in Patiala House Court seeking regular bail in the matter. In her bail plea, she alleged that her arrest was illegal and in contravention of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The court, on Tuesday sought a response from the Delhi Police Special Cell on Neelam’s plea. The matter is listed on on January 10 for further hearing.
Also, the Delhi police special cell had sought permission from the court to conduct polygraph tests on all the accused arrested in the case.
Also read | A security breach that must lead to sweeping changes
In her application, Azad had sought bail citing delay in providing legal counsel to the accused who also submitted in the court that the State did not permit her to have the same. “She was under compulsion to either get represented by DLSA (court provided legal aid) or proceed without any legal representation,’’ the bail application states.
Advocate Suresh Kumar, who had moved the bail plea on behalf of Azad, stated that her family wasn’t informed after her arrest. He added that she wasn’t permitted to meet any person, including an advocate of her choice, which is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
“....at the court a single legal counsel was appointed for all the accused persons without giving them any choice. Perhaps, basic factors such as the the legal aid’s relevant experience/ past cases/ any other factor that could have an impact on the choice of the accused persons wasn’t shared with the petitioner and her co-accused,” stated the bail plea.
In the plea, Azad added that she did not even get an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of her arrest with the legal counsel which has impacted her case.
It is further submitted that Azad’s brother had moved an application before this court on December, 15, 2023, seeking a copy of the FIR and permission to meet her along with an advocate. The application was disposed of on December 21 and no interim order had been passed during the pendency of the said application.
“However, prior to the brother’s application the police’s application for remand of the petitioner was taken up at and the same DLSA counsel appeared in the matte. It was only after the disposal of the remand application that the petitioner was asked by the Court if she wanted to be represented by an advocate of her choice....,”the plea added.
