![\"Assembly](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-47529300,imgsize-110164,width-400,height-225,resizemode-72\/47529300.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNew Delhi: A court on Wednesday sent Sarabjeet Singh, accused of breaching security at Delhi Assembly by forcing his way into the complex in an SUV, to five days\u2019 judicial custody.Singh was produced before chief judicial magistrate Harshita Mishra on the expiry of his eight-day police custody granted on April 7. Opposing any further police custody, his counsel, advocate Anshu Shukla, cited the accused\u2019s deteriorating mental health condition. He had earlier argued before a separate magisterial court that Singh had been mentally ill for a long time and had mistakenly entered the assembly, \u201cthinking it was a gurdwara\u201d.The investigating officer said Singh was referred to Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences Hospital, where he was admitted briefly and prescribed medication.Additional public prosecutor Atul Shrivastav emphasised that the investigation was at a \u201cnascent stage\u201d and pointed to the pending test identification parade of the accused, noting that it could not be conducted earlier as he was admitted to the hospital.The prosecution also referred to Singh \u2019s alleged connection to the farmers\u2019 agitation, stating that he was a \u201cfollower of Kisan Andolan\u201d and had shared several posts on social media — some of which were later deleted — expressing support for protesters who died during the 2020-21 agitation against three contentious farm laws, which had since been repealed.On April 6, the SUV bearing a Uttar Pradesh registration from Pilibhit rammed through gate no. 2 of the assembly around 2pm. It came from the Delhi University side, broke through the boom barriers and entered the premises, police said. A case has been registered under relevant provisions, including attempt to murder, criminal trespass with preparation to commit an offence, use of criminal force against a public servant, along with other charges related to the obstruction of public servants in the discharge of duty.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n