On Monday, the Delhi Police vehemently opposed Neelam Azad's plea for a copy of the FIR in the December 13 Parliament security breach case, asserting that the document is sensitive and its disclosure could jeopardize the ongoing investigation. The police, updating Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur, emphasized the active progress of the investigation, with the accused in custody and other suspects still at large. Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh highlighted concerns about potential interference if the accused were given access to the FIR during police custody. Azad's family, represented by Advocate Suresh Kumar Chaudhary, argued against the police stance, claiming ignorance of the charges and asserting violations of constitutional rights. The judge reserved the order, with Azad's plea citing the denial of FIR access and restrictions on meeting the family, alleging harassment and seeking the court's intervention to uphold procedural rights and Constitutional principles.
Key Points:
1. The Delhi Police strongly opposed Neelam Azad's request to provide a copy of the FIR in the December 13 Parliament security breach case.
2. The police, addressing Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur, emphasized the critical nature of every piece of information in the ongoing investigation.
3. The FIR in question is labeled as a sealed and sensitive document, and the police expressed concerns about potential leaks affecting the investigation.
4. The investigation is actively progressing, with Azad in police custody and additional suspects still at large.
5. Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh raised concerns about the potential influence on the investigation if Azad were given a copy of the FIR during her police custody.
6. The sensitivity of the case was stressed, justifying the withholding of specific information.
7. Azad's family, represented by Advocate Suresh Kumar Chaudhary, countered the police stance, claiming the denial of access to the FIR and restrictions on meeting the family violated Azad's constitutional rights.
8. The judge reserved the order on Azad's application, considering the arguments from both sides.
9. The plea highlighted the family's visit to the Parliament Street police station to obtain the FIR, only to find the case transferred to the Special Cell ACP's New Friends Colony branch.
10. The application argued that the denial of access contradicts procedural laws and Constitutional articles, seeking the court's intervention to uphold procedural rights and Constitutional principles in the interest of justice.
(With Agency Inputs)
Read also| Accused in Parliament Security Breach Identified as E-Rickshaw Driver, Sagar Sharma
