A Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) on Wednesday ordered release of CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka after their five days custody was extended by two more days on October 19.
Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Ritu Raj, acting as the SEM, passed the release order after accepting the sureties furnished by Das and Ranka, according to Bar and Bench.
Delhi Police had earlier sought an extension of judicial custody by three more days.
Das and Ranka's arrest
The two were first detained and subsequently sent to judicial custody on October 13 for allegations that they breached security and entered Jantar Mantar during protests against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
On October 19, the SEM extended the judicial custody by two days after Delhi Police claimed their release could disrupt “peace and tranquility.”
In its order, the SEM court said Das and Ranka’s conduct showed a lack of respect for the law and raised serious concerns about their potential to disturb public peace and tranquillity.
It also noted their “habitualness” in calling for protests in de-notified areas. The court further rejected the sureties submitted for Das and Ranka, finding them unfit.
CJP leaders challenge order against custody extension
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard a plea by the two CJP leaders against the extension of their judicial custody by a special executive magistrate (SEM) court.
During the hearing, Justice Subramonium Prasad asked Abhik Chimni, counsel for the petitioners, about their ages. Chimni informed the court that Saurav Das was 27 years old and Ashutosh Ranka was 32.
“Then you are not Gen Z. What is Gen Z? Court is informed that people born after 1997 are Gen Z. Then you are not Gen Z," the court remarked.
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke also reacted to the court's remarks. He shared a picture of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on X, captioning it, "The only person who qualifies as a Gen Z.
‘Barricade there for a purpose’: Delhi HC
During the Wednesday hearing, the Delhi HC also questioned the petitioners' conduct, pointing out that they were at the forefront of the protest and had allegedly breached barricades despite not having permission.
"Barricade is there for a purpose… and when you break the barricade, there is a chance of 10-20 people coming," the court told duo's lawyer Abhik Chimni, referring to incidents of “arson” and unrest in other countries.
“We are seeing what is happening outside our country... Arson etc. You may have started with something you say is peaceful. For that purpose you take police permission which is to prevent unwanted persons who join your group and spoil your name,” Bar and Bench quoted the high court as observing.