The Delhi High Court has agreed to hear today a petition filed by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. The petition challenges an order from a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) that extended the activists’ judicial custody by two days. The matter was listed for urgent consideration before Justice Subramonium Prasad, and the court’s decision to hear the case was announced without delay.
Background of the case
According to the filing, the dispute stems from an alleged breach of peace bonds that the two activists executed earlier this month. The bonds required them not to unfurl the national flag at Jantar Mantar, a location that had been de‑notified for public gatherings. On October 14, Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena remanded Das and Ranka to five days of judicial custody after they attempted to stage the prohibited flag‑raising protest at the site. The matter was slated for further hearing on October 19, when the Special Executive Magistrate extended their custody by an additional two days.
Prior to the Jantar Mantar incident, the pair were intercepted at an airport on October 10 and placed under preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Those proceedings were linked to planned protests in Delhi against the Chief Election Commissioner. After furnishing peace bonds worth ₹50,000, they were released the same day, only to be re‑apprehended on October 14 following the attempted Tiranga protest.
Legal arguments presented
In their plea, Das and Ranka contend that the Special Executive Magistrate exercised authority arbitrarily when invoking Section 135(3) of the BNSS to extend their custody. The petition argues that the statutory ground for custody—”in default of execution of the Bond”—does not apply because the sureties submitted on 19.10.2026 (as recorded in the petition) complied with legal requirements. Moreover, the activists assert that the magistrate’s finding that no additional surety was present is factually incorrect; they maintain that two further sureties, each with duly executed bonds and Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs), were available but never given an opportunity to be presented before the court.
The petition further alleges that every adverse finding in the SEM’s order derives solely from the investigating officer’s application, suggesting a lack of independent judicial assessment. It characterises the protest at the de‑notified site as a regulatory issue rather than a threat to public order, challenging the premise that the activists’ conduct warranted extended custody.
Court proceedings and orders
When the Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj issued the October 19 order extending custody, the magistrate noted that the respondents had deliberately breached their peace bonds and immediately committed a breach of peace. The order also referenced concerns raised by the investigating officer regarding the activists’ alleged pattern of organising protests at de‑notified locations. The magistrate expressed doubt that the assurances offered by Das and Ranka—that they would not repeat the alleged conduct—were credible, citing material placed on record by the police.
In addition to extending custody, the magistrate directed the activists to furnish fresh sureties, finding the previously produced sureties unfit. Specific deficiencies cited included mismatches between photographs on bond documents and the Aadhaar cards of the sureties, as well as the sureties’ inability to provide satisfactory answers during the inquiry. The court’s directive underscores the emphasis placed on the authenticity and reliability of surety arrangements in maintaining the conditions of judicial custody.
As the two‑day extension expires today, Das and Ranka are scheduled to be produced before the SEM Court. Their legal team hopes that the High Court’s urgent hearing will result in a reversal of the extension, arguing that the procedural and factual shortcomings identified in the petition render the magistrate’s order unsustainable.
The High Court’s decision to hear the matter today signals the judiciary’s willingness to scrutinise the procedural basis of preventive custody orders, especially where the underlying facts involve political protest and the enforcement of peace bonds. Observers note that the outcome could have broader implications for how the BNSS is applied in cases involving de‑notified protest sites and the role of sureties in securing compliance with court‑mandated conditions.
Be First to Comment