The Delhi High Court let Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka withdraw custody plea against the October 19 order of a Special Executive Magistrate, after Justice Subramonium Prasad repeatedly asked why they had not used the appeal and revision remedies in the BNSS.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, October 21, permitted Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to withdraw their writ petition against the extension of their judicial custody in preventive proceedings, making clear that it had expressed no opinion on the merits. The Court indicated that the order could be tested in an appeal or revision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
Justice Subramonium Prasad heard the matter, which had been mentioned for urgent listing earlier in the day as the two leaders’ custody was due to end the same day. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, with CGSC Ashish Dixit, appeared for the Delhi Police. Advocate Abhik Chimni appeared for Das and Ranka.
How the case reached here
The two were apprehended on October 10, ahead of the CJP’s protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and were released the same day on peace bonds of Rs 50,000 each in proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS. The police later alleged that the bonds were breached during a protest at Jantar Mantar after it had been de-notified as a protest site, and on October 14 Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena sent them to five days of judicial custody. On October 19, Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj extended custody by two days, till October 21, held the sureties offered unfit and directed fresh sureties.
The petition, filed on October 20, called the October 19 order arbitrary and a breach of Article 21. It argued that Section 140 BNSS allows a surety to be refused only if it is unfit, and that the Magistrate had not fixed the number of sureties, the bond amount or its term as Section 130 requires. Section 414 BNSS, which replaces Section 373 of the old Code, provides an appeal against an order requiring security for keeping the peace or refusing to accept or rejecting a surety.
The prayer and the bond question
Chimni opened by seeking to have the October 19 order set aside and read out the prayers.
Justice Prasad put the chronology to him: bonds were furnished on October 11, the day Jantar Mantar was de-notified, and the two allegedly went there again and were arrested. He noted that the BNSS has its own procedure for a breach, including forfeiture of the surety, and that the authorities had instead issued a fresh notice.
Whether the bond was in fact breached, the judge said, would be examined later. The question for now was narrower:
“Looking at your grounds, can insisting on a surety be said to be illegal?”
He observed that the visit took place while the challenge to the de-notification was pending before the Supreme Court without any stay, and that when those at the forefront of a gathering break a barricade, others may follow, adding that he was not commenting on whether that was good or bad.
Police permission, he said, also helps keep unwanted people out of a group that starts as a peaceful gathering.
Why not the statutory remedy
The Bench then turned to maintainability. Justice Prasad said the remedy for the second incident lay in revision, and drew a distinction between maintainability and entertainability:
“If the order is open to revision, why approach under Article 226?”
Chimni replied that even a breach of a personal bond would not affect the exercise of powers under Section 135(3) BNSS.
The judge asked whether it would be better to withdraw, see what happened before the Magistrate later in the day and then follow the course of law, leaving the choice to the petitioners. He also remarked that the apprehension behind the first bond appeared to have come true with a second alleged breach of peace, and asked whether the authorities would then not be justified in imposing stricter conditions.
If the Magistrate ruled in their favour, he said, the issue would end; if not, they could seek revision or return under Article 226 the next day. “There is no need today to debate for people’s ears,” he told counsel. Chimni maintained that the order was not sustainable at all and pointed to its finding that the public-order test was met. The judge said this could not be a final hearing, as the State would have to respond.
The ‘Gen Z’ exchange
When Chimni said the October 19 order had moved on to examining the surety and recorded a finding under Section 140, Justice Prasad asked the petitioners’ ages. Told they were 27 and 31, he remarked that they were “not Gen Z”, and observed that the protest had begun as a student protest but its cause had since changed while the people remained the same. Where breach of peace is apprehended, he said, questions about who a group is and what it stands for become relevant.
He asked that this debate be kept for the appropriate proceedings, since the issue before him was only the insistence on a bond. Chimni said the rejection of the surety was bad in law and that the petitioners sought release on a personal bond.
The State’s stand and the sureties
ASG Sharma told the Court that the petitioners claimed to have furnished more sureties and that they were to be produced before the Magistrate that day. Justice Prasad told counsel that he was drawing the Court into a debate that might not go in his favour, and asked whether fresh sureties were being offered and whether an order rejecting a surety was appealable.
Chimni said the sureties had been rejected arbitrarily and that, if he withdrew, they might be rejected again. The judge offered to keep the matter pending until after the vacation, noting that the petitioners could always file an application and had moved the Court within two hours that day.
Preventive custody versus preventive detention
Counsel’s core argument was that preventive custody cannot be imposed arbitrarily. The judge responded:
“Liberty is sacrosanct. But when the Code already provides a remedy, why not pursue it?”
He added that habeas corpus is the remedy for preventive detention, and that preventive custody and preventive detention are different things.
Chimni argued that the October 19 order gave no reasons for any imminent threat and showed no habitual conduct. Justice Prasad asked whether the alleged breach of the first bond was not itself enough, referring to Section 135 BNSS.
The judge explained that an appellate court examines the facts and reaches its own conclusion, while a writ court examines the decision-making process. Counsel, relying on Section 135(3) BNSS, said two fresh sureties furnished with the last bond were never even called by the Magistrate. The matter was passed over briefly for counsel to take instructions on filing an appeal.
When the matter resumed, Justice Prasad questioned whether a precedent relied on by the petitioners would help them given the alleged breach of an earlier bond and a second preventive proceeding. He suggested that a repeated incident could warrant a stricter assessment of the apprehended breach of peace, pointed them to an appeal under Section 414 BNSS, and observed that a writ court does not ordinarily substitute its own view for the magistrate’s subjective satisfaction.
The outcome
Chimni then said the petitioners would withdraw the plea. ASG Sharma said Article 226 had been invoked and an hour spent, and sought to make a point on its scope. The Court permitted the withdrawal, recording:
“It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.”
The outcome of the leaders’ production before the Special Executive Magistrate later on October 21 was not known at the time of writing. The police’s allegation that the peace bonds were breached and the petitioners’ grounds remain 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: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Date of hearing: October 21, 2026
Order challenged: Special Executive Magistrate, New Delhi District, October 19, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Abhik Chimni for the petitioners; ASG Chetan Sharma with CGSC Ashish Dixit for the Delhi Police