New Delhi: Delhi High Court Wednesday refused to interfere with the judicial custody of Cockroach Janta Party leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, as it asked them to await the outcome of the hearing scheduled before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), and approach the appellate court if their grievance continues.
The hearing before the SEM is scheduled later in the day.
Justice Subramonium Prasad permitted the CJP co-conveners to withdraw their plea and observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not an appropriate remedy for a “repeat case” of violating a ‘peace’ bond.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma said the matter is listed before the SEM regarding the furnishing of fresh sureties.
The case was taken up by the court after the CJP leaders sought an urgent hearing in the high court, which is shut due to the Dussehra break.
Along with other CJP workers, Das and Ranka displayed the national flag at Jantar Mantar, which had been denotified as a protest site, and shouted slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar before being detained and placed under preventive arrest on October 13.
A SEM first sent them to judicial custody for five days on October 14.
Advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the petitioners, argued that they ought to be released on a personal bond as the SEM has no jurisdiction to extend their judicial custody.
He further argued that the SEM’s insistence on a surety was not sustained in law.
Justice Prasad, however, observed that the petitioners allegedly violated a bond tendered by them for maintaining tranquillity by entering a de-notified protest site, and questioned whether the authorities were not entitled to seek a “stricter” surety in a “repeat case”.
The judge remarked that the questions surrounding the locus and motive of the petitioners were also significant and have to be looked into by the appropriate authority, considering that while they were initially involved in a student protest, there was now a different cause and a statement about “regime change”.
“Now there is another cause. People remain the same, causes change. All these questions assume significance so to who you are; what is your motive; what are you trying to do? You suddenly hear something like a regime change.. you suddenly hear something (against) which we normally do by a ballot. In a hearing like this, it is not necessary for us to go into this. Keep the debate for an appropriate proceeding,” the judge said.
On being informed that Das and Ranka were 27 and 31 years old, respectively, the court remarked, “That means you are not Gen-Z.”
“They are an inspiration,” the lawyer responded.
The court also emphasised that the purpose behind a police permission for a protest is not to stop anyone but prevent “unwanted persons” from joining the protest group and ensure that a peaceful agitation does not escalate into violence.
“The two petitioners here are at the forefront. When you go and break a barricade, the chances of 10 or 20 more people violating the 163 (prohibitory order) are very bright. There might be persons who might not be in your control and who might do things. We have seen it happening outside our country. Student protest has now gone into arson, looting, burning,” it added.
While permitting Das and Ranka to withdraw the case, the judge clarified that he has not made observations on the merit of the matter.
Das and Ranka assailed the SEM’s October 19 order remanding them to two days’ judicial custody in the high court.
They were taken into custody on October 13 after they allegedly climbed over a locked gate to enter Jantar Mantar, which had earlier been denotified as a designated protest site, and were sent to five-day judicial custody.
A newly-appointed Special Executive Magistrate at Mandir Marg police station on Monday ordered their judicial remand till October 21 after they were produced before him.
In their petition, the CJP leaders argued that the SEM’s order is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Their petition asserted that Das and Ranka continue to remain in custody for six days despite submitting the required sureties multiple times.
“The mandatory procedure under Section 140 BNSS was not followed for rejecting the surety showing complete misapplication of the law in the impugned order. That delay and obstruction in the acceptance and verification of sureties frustrates the very purpose of release,” the plea said.
“The learned SEM has arbitrarily exercised their powers to extend judicial custody of the petitioners under Section 135(3) BNSS. This is because the basis of judicial custody is ‘in default of execution of the bond’. However, the basis is incorrect in view of the petitioner’s sureties produced on 19.10.2026 being in accordance with law,” it added.
