“Liberty is sacrosanct. But when the Code already provides a remedy, why not pursue it?” With that question from Justice Subramonium Prasad, CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka withdrew their Delhi High Court challenge to their judicial custody.
New Delhi: Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on Wednesday, October 21, withdrew their petition in the Delhi High Court challenging a Special Executive Magistrate’s October 19 order extending their judicial custody, after the Court repeatedly asked why they had invoked Article 226 instead of the revision remedy available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
The plea was heard by Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had agreed earlier in the day to take it up urgently. Permitting the withdrawal, the Court made clear that it had expressed no opinion on the merits. Advocate Abhik Chimni appeared for Das and Ranka, and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, with CGSC Ashish Dixit, for the Delhi Police. The two were due to be produced before the Special Executive Magistrate the same afternoon, when their custody ended.
The bond and its alleged breach
Summarising the case, Justice Prasad noted that the two had furnished bonds on October 11, the day Jantar Mantar was de-notified as a protest site, and were arrested after going there again, with the allegation being that the visit breached their bonds. Once bonds and sureties are accepted, he said, the BNSS lays down a procedure for a breach, including forfeiture of the surety, and “perhaps they have been more benevolent by issuing you a fresh notice.”
The judge observed that the de-notification, though under challenge before the Supreme Court, had not been stayed, and that the petitioners were “at the forefront”:
“If you go there and break a barricade, there is a strong possibility that 10–20 others will follow. I am not saying whether it is good or bad. Some people may not be under your control, and they may do things.”
Police permission, he added, helps prevent unwanted people from joining a group and “spoiling your name.” He also asked whether, if the apprehension behind the first bond appeared to have come true with a second breach of peace, the authorities would not be justified in imposing stricter conditions. Whether the bond was in fact breached, the judge said, would be examined later.
Revision, not Article 226
Calling the second incident a question of breach of the bond, Justice Prasad said the remedy lay in revision, and drew a distinction between maintainability and entertainability. He suggested that the petitioners withdraw, see what happened before the Magistrate that afternoon and then follow the course of law, saying that if things went their way the issue would end, and if not they could seek revision or return under Article 226 the next day:
“Are you firing your gun today when it may not be legally necessary? Take a step back and come back in two minutes.”
Chimni argued that the October 19 order was “not sustainable at all”, that it recorded a finding on the public-order test without explaining any imminent threat, that there was no habitual conduct, and that the rejection of the sureties was “bad in law” and “completely arbitrary”. Two fresh sureties furnished with the last bond, he said, were never even called by the Magistrate. Even if a personal bond had been violated, he asked, what effect did that have on the exercise of power under Section 135(3) BNSS? The petitioners sought release on a personal bond.
The judge asked whether the breach of the first bond was not enough to show an imminent threat, and said that in a writ the Court examines the decision-making process rather than the decision itself, whereas an appellate court examines the facts:
“Liberty is sacrosanct. But when the Code already provides a remedy, why not pursue it? You are still not answering that question.”
He also noted that preventive custody and preventive detention are different, with habeas corpus being the remedy for the latter.
“Then you are not Gen Z”
Told that the petitioners were 27 and 31, Justice Prasad remarked that they were “not Gen Z”, and observed that the movement had begun as a student protest with children participating, and that “now the cause has changed, though the people remain the same.” When a Magistrate examines an apprehension of breach of peace, he said, questions about a group whose causes keep changing may become relevant, but that debate should be kept for the appropriate proceedings.
After the matter was passed over for Chimni to take instructions, he told the Court the petitioners would withdraw. ASG Sharma sought to make a submission on the scope of Article 226, but the Court permitted the withdrawal.
Background
Das and Ranka were first held on October 10 ahead of the CJP’s protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and released on peace bonds. After the October 13 Jantar Mantar protest, a Special Executive Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody on October 14 for allegedly breaching their bonds, and on October 19 Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj extended the custody until October 21, holding their sureties unfit. Separately, two FIRs against them over the Jantar Mantar protest have been transferred to the Crime Branch’s Inter State Cell.
The police’s allegations of breach and the petitioners’ challenge to the custody are both untested. The High Court has expressly recorded that it expressed no opinion on the merits, and 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 of Order: October 21, 2026 (dismissed as withdrawn)
Appearances: Advocate Abhik Chimni for the petitioners; ASG Chetan Sharma with CGSC Ashish Dixit for the Delhi Police