The BNSS has its own procedure for a breached peace bond, Justice Subramonium Prasad told CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, and he asked whether stricter conditions would not be justified after a second alleged breach.
New Delhi: Taking up Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka’s plea against their judicial custody, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, October 21, looked at the law on breach of peace bonds, observing that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) lays down a procedure for a breach, forfeiture of the surety included, and asking whether insisting on a surety could be called illegal [Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observations. Advocate Abhik Chimni appeared for Das and Ranka, and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, with CGSC Ashish Dixit, for the Delhi Police. The petition was later withdrawn, with the Court recording that it had expressed no opinion on the merits.
A surety, and the question of legality
Justice Prasad began with the grounds of the petition: “A person goes there, gives a bond and then allegedly breaches it. Whether that is correct, we will examine later. Looking at your grounds, can insisting on a surety be said to be illegal? We will hear you on that.” He then put a further question to counsel:
“The apprehension behind the first bond appears to have come true with a second breach of peace. Would the authorities not be justified in imposing stricter conditions?”
For the petitioners, Chimni argued that even if a personal bond had been violated, Section 135(3) BNSS could not be invoked on that basis, that the order disclosed no imminent threat, and that the two fresh sureties furnished with the last bond were never even called by the Magistrate. The judge wanted to know whether the breach of the first bond was not itself enough to show an imminent threat, and whether an order rejecting a surety was appealable.
ALSO READ: Executive Magistrate Extends CJP Leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka’s Judicial Custody By Two Days
What the BNSS says about a breach
Summing up the facts, the judge noted that the two had furnished bonds on October 11, the day Jantar Mantar was de-notified, and were arrested after going there again, the allegation being that the visit breached their bonds. He said:
“Once bail bonds and sureties are accepted, the BNSS provides a procedure for dealing with a breach, including forfeiture of the surety. Instead of following that procedure, perhaps they have been more benevolent by issuing you a fresh notice.”
As a matter of general law, an Executive Magistrate who apprehends a breach of the peace may, under the BNSS as under the old CrPC, call on a person to show cause why a bond to keep the peace should not be executed, and may detain the person if the bond or acceptable sureties are not furnished. If a bond is then breached, the law allows its forfeiture and recovery from the surety.
The Jantar Mantar point
The petitioners, the judge observed, went to Jantar Mantar while the challenge to its de-notification was pending before the Supreme Court, and the notification had not been stayed. Police permission, he said, helps keep unwanted people out of a gathering and prevents them from “spoiling your name.”
The Court pointed to the revision remedy, after which the petition was withdrawn, the Court recording that it had expressed no opinion on the merits.
How the matter reached the Court
Das and Ranka were first held on October 10, ahead of the CJP protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and were released on peace bonds. After the October 13 protest at Jantar Mantar, which had been de-notified as a protest site, a Special Executive Magistrate sent them to judicial custody on October 14 for allegedly breaching those bonds. On October 19, Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj extended the custody until October 21 and held the sureties offered to be unfit. That order is what their High Court petition, filed on October 20, challenged.
The police allegation that the two breached their bonds is untested, and the High Court recorded that it expressed no opinion on the merits. Das and Ranka are presumed innocent.
Case Title: Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka v. State (NCT of Delhi) (case number not available)
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Date: October 21, 2026 (petition dismissed as withdrawn)
Appearances: Advocate Abhik Chimni for the petitioners; ASG Chetan Sharma with CGSC Ashish Dixit for the Delhi Police