Six days in custody despite repeated offers of sureties: that is the core of the CJP leaders’ plea in the Delhi High Court against a two-day extension. They say the Magistrate wrongly rejected their sureties and merely adopted the police’s case. The allegation that they breached peace bonds is the police’s case and remains untested.
New Delhi: A Special Executive Magistrate’s order of October 19, which extended their judicial custody until October 21, is under challenge before the Delhi High Court by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. They moved the Court on Tuesday, October 20, and their counsel has sought an urgent hearing, with the plea expected to be taken up on Wednesday [Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
The impugned order was passed by Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj, New Delhi District, in Kalandra No. 07A under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Bench that will hear the petition and its number were not available at the time of writing.
The petitioners’ case
According to the petition, the October 19 order violates the right to liberty under Article 21, and it calls the order a colourable and arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioners say they have been in custody for six days despite offering sureties several times, and rely on Aldanish Rein v. State of NCT of Delhi (2018), where the High Court held that a person who has submitted surety bonds should be released on a personal bond while verification is pending.
On the sureties, they contend that Section 140 BNSS allows a surety to be refused only if he is “an unfit person for the purposes of the bond”. In their account, the Magistrate rejected sureties because they allegedly had “no control over the Respondents to produce them before the Court” and could not recall the respondents’ parentage, and wrongly recorded that no other surety was present, though two more sureties with executed bonds and FDRs were available. They cite Sagayam @ Devasagayam v. State (Madras HC, 2017) and Sujit Kumar Singh v. Director General of Prisons (Delhi HC, 2024) on surety verification and delay.
ALSO READ: Executive Magistrate Extends CJP Leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka’s Judicial Custody By Two Days
The plea further argues that custody under Section 135(3) BNSS is bad in law because the Magistrate never specified the number of sureties, the bond amount or its term as Section 130 requires, and that directing fresh sureties is inconsistent with any finding of imminent threat. Invoking S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), it says a public-order restriction needs a proximate nexus, “a spark in a powder keg”, not a remote possibility.
A protest at a de-notified site is, at most, a question of regulation, the petitioners add, pointing out that the de-notification of Jantar Mantar is itself under challenge before the Supreme Court and the High Court. Relying on Asha Pant v. State (2008), they say the order records no independent opinion of the Magistrate and mechanically adopts the police’s material.
What was said before the Magistrate on October 19
The SHO of Parliament Street police station sought a further five days of judicial custody. Advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the two leaders, told the court they did not wish to file a reply to the application. The investigating officer, SI Mohit Bhati, submitted that there was a continued imminent threat, citing an anonymous WhatsApp message received by the Magistrate’s predecessor, for which a separate DD entry was registered.
He alleged that the two, as CJP members, had mobilised the public to protest at Jantar Mantar, which has been de-notified as a protest site, despite an undertaking given on October 11 before the SEM, South-West District, and had repeatedly called for protests at Jantar Mantar and Connaught Place on social media.
Counsel for the leaders argued that they should be released at once, that the police application disclosed no apprehension of a repeat offence, that they had made no calls after October 10, and that CJP co-founder Abhijeet Dipke had already been released. The Magistrate held the sureties offered to be unfit, directed fresh sureties, and ordered that the two be produced on October 21 at 2 PM.
How the proceedings began
On October 10, the two were apprehended at an airport ahead of the party’s protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS were initiated, and they were released the same day on peace bonds of Rs 50,000 each. The police later alleged that the bonds were breached at Jantar Mantar, and on October 14 Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena remanded them to five days of judicial custody.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Remands CJP Leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka To Five Days Judicial Custody
Sections 126 and 170 BNSS proceedings are preventive, not a prosecution for an offence. The police’s allegations and the petitioners’ grounds are both untested, the High Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the presumption of innocence applies to both leaders.
Case Title: Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka v. State (NCT of Delhi) (title as described; case number not available)
Court: Delhi High Court; Bench not available; hearing expected October 21, 2026
Order challenged: Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj, New Delhi District, Kalandra No. 07A, October 19, 2026
Appearances before SEM: Advocate Abhik Chimni for Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka; Advocates Bhairav Dass and Prashant Prakash for the complainant