Published Oct 20, 2026 | 7:48 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 20, 2026 | 7:48 PM
CJP head of legal affairs Ratna Singh has criticised the October 19 order as “absurd”.
Synopsis: Cockroach Janta Party leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have moved the Delhi High Court challenging a magistrate’s order extending their judicial custody until 21 October, alleging that their sureties were unlawfully rejected despite repeated submissions. Das and Ranka were remanded to five days’ judicial custody on October 14, after they were detained while attempting to “reclaim” Jantar Mantar. Their initial five-day judicial custody ended on October 19.
Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have moved the Delhi High Court challenging a Special Executive Magistrate’s order extending their judicial custody by two days on Monday, 19 October, alleging that the magistrate rejected their sureties in violation of the law and curtailed their constitutional right to liberty.
Das and Ranka were remanded to five days’ judicial custody on October 14, after they were detained while attempting to “reclaim” Jantar Mantar. Their detention came a day after the Delhi Police denotified the central Delhi venue as a designated site for protests and demonstrations.
Their initial five-day judicial custody ended on Monday. The magistrate rejected fresh sureties and extended their custody until October 21.
In their writ petition, Das and Ranka contend that they should have been released on personal bonds while verification of their sureties was pending. They cite the 2018 Delhi High Court judgment in Aldanish Rein v. State of NCT of Delhi, which held that an arrested person should be released on a personal bond after submitting surety bonds, pending verification.
The petition says the leaders submitted the required sureties multiple times but remained in custody for six days. It challenges the magistrate’s decision under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and argues that the custody extension under Section 135(3) was unlawful because the stated ground—failure to execute the bond—did not apply to the sureties they had submitted.
The petition disputes the magistrate’s finding that no other sureties were available. It says two additional sureties, with duly executed bonds and fixed deposit receipts, were present but were not given an opportunity to submit them.
The leaders also contend that the magistrate’s order contains no independent assessment of the threat and instead adopts the investigating officer’s application. Citing the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Asha Pant v. State (2008), they argue that mechanically adopting police material makes the exercise of power vulnerable to invalidation.
CJP head of legal affairs Ratna Singh has criticised the October 19 order as “absurd”.
“I think the SCM courts should be abolished because they have been compromised. There is no apprehension here, no threat. There has been no call from our end, and yet they were sent to two days of judicial custody. They do not care about their liberty. They do not care about their past record. They just want to give an excuse, and we have seen the kind of excuse they have given today,” she said, addressing the press on Monday.
“All the youth of this country are watching. They are seeing how those in power are misusing the law to curb voices, curb these youngsters and prevent people from coming together and raising their voices. I think they do not understand that all of this is making them stronger.”
Singh had earlier rejected reports that the leaders refused to sign a peace bond or that their lawyers intended to challenge the Delhi Police notice before the High Court. She said the peace bond was not the issue before the magistrate.
She said the public prosecutor had presented no arguments on the law. “All his arguments were mere assumptions. Absolute waste of time of SEM court. Saurav and Ashutosh must be released,” she wrote on X.
Singh alleged that the magistrate remained on the phone inside the courtroom for three hours while writing the order. She also disputed the police’s claim that the leaders’ release posed a threat to peace.
“There was no protest call given by the CJP after the JC of Ashutosh & Saurav; for the state to claim that there was threat to peace by their release,” she said.
Defence counsel said fresh sureties, along with the required documents and identity verifications, had been submitted after the initial five-day custody period ended. The State then filed a fresh application seeking an extension, citing an imminent threat to public order. The defence said the State had provided no factual basis or statement on record to support the claim.
“This is purely preventive custody where no interrogation or investigation is required, yet they have been kept locked up for six days straight simply out of fear that they might exercise their right to protest,” defence counsel said.
The lawyers also alleged that the magistrate rejected the fresh sureties after questioning each one for 15 minutes, citing alleged mismatches in photographs or the sureties’ inability to control the leaders. They said the order did not explain the alleged apprehension and merely recorded the State’s claim that their release posed a threat.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
