A special executive magistrate (SEM) ordered the release of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka after the expiry of their judicial custody on Wednesday in connection with the October 14 protest at Jantar Mantar.
The two were produced before the SEM, where their sureties were also submitted during the proceedings. Das and Ranka were initially remanded in five days’ judicial custody on October 14 after being detained for allegedly entering the denotified protest site of Jantar Mantar and violating peace bonds.
Their custody was extended by two days on October 19 and was due to expire on Wednesday.
According to sources, the police had sought an extension of the judicial custody of Das and Ranka when they were presented before the SEM at Mandir Marg police station.
The two were released from Tihar Jail late in the night.
Earlier in the day, Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the CJP leaders’ judicial custody, asking them to await the SEM court’s decision and approach the appellate court if their grievance were not addressed.
After the high court refused to look into their plea, Das and Ranka withdrew their petition challenging the extension of their judicial custody. The court allowed them to do so without making any observation on the merits of the matter. Das and Ranka had challenged the SEM’s October 19 order extending their preventive detention, saying it was a blatant violation of their fundamental right to liberty.
The court orally observed that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not an appropriate remedy for a “repeat case” of violating a peace bond.
Article 226 empowers the high courts to issue directions to any person or government authority within their territorial jurisdiction in matters concerning habeas corpus petitions and prohibitory orders, among others.
The court observed that the legal remedy for both leaders lay in a review application challenging the SEM’s decision.
Advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the petitioners, argued that they ought to be released on a personal bond as the SEM had nojurisdiction to extend their judicial custody. Chimni argued that the SEM’s insistence on a surety was not sustained in law.
During the hearing, the court also sought to know their age to find out whether they could be called Gen Z. The counsel said Das was 27 and Ranka 31. The court said they did not qualify for the tag, but a lawyer pointed out that people born after 1997 were Gen Z.
The court also observed that the CJP leaders were part of the June-JulyJantar Mantar protests by students against NEET paper leaks.
“Now there is another cause. People remain the same, causes change,” the court said, referring to the CJP’s latest demand for chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over the SIR.
“All these questions assume significance as to who you are; what is your motive; what are you trying to do. You suddenly hear something like a regime change… you suddenly hear something (against) whichwe normally do by a ballot. In a hearing like this, it is not necessary for us to go into this. Keep the debate on for an appropriate proceeding,” the court added.