The Delhi High Court declined to intervene in the custody of CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. It directed them to pursue relief before the magistrate and, if needed, the appellate court.
Stock photo used for illustration
Newdelhi,Oct 21, 2026 15:32 IST
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the judicial custody of Cockroach Janta Party leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, news agency Press Trust of India reported. The court asked them to await the outcome of a hearing before the Special Executive Magistrate and approach the appellate court if their grievance remained unresolved.
Justice Subramonium Prasad allowed the CJP co-conveners to withdraw their petition and said a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not an appropriate remedy in what the court described as a repeat case of violating a bond to maintain peace. The hearing before the Special Executive Magistrate was scheduled for later in the day.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told the court that the matter was listed before the magistrate for the submission of fresh sureties, PTI reported. The High Court took up the case after the CJP leaders sought an urgent hearing during its Dussehra break.
Das and Ranka, along with other CJP workers, displayed the national flag at Jantar Mantar, which had been removed from the list of designated protest sites, and shouted slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. They were detained and placed under preventive arrest on October 13.
A Special Executive Magistrate first sent them to judicial custody for five days on October 14. A newly appointed magistrate at Mandir Marg police station later remanded them in judicial custody until October 21 after they were produced before him on Monday.
Advocate Abhik Chimni, representing the petitioners, argued that they should be released on personal bonds because the magistrate had no jurisdiction to extend their judicial custody. He also said the insistence on sureties was not supported by law.
Justice Prasad observed that the petitioners had allegedly violated a bond to maintain peace by entering a site that was no longer designated for protests. He asked whether the authorities were entitled to seek a stricter surety in a repeat case.
The judge said questions about the standing and motive of the petitioners were significant and should be examined by the appropriate authority. He noted that while they had initially been involved in a student protest, the cause was now different and included a statement about regime change.
“Now there is another cause. People remain the same, causes change. All these questions assume significance so 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 which we normally do by a ballot. In a hearing like this, it is not necessary for us to go into this. Keep the debate for an appropriate proceeding,” the judge said, according to PTI.
After being told that Das and Ranka were 27 and 31 years old, respectively, the court remarked, “That means you are not Gen-Z.” Their lawyer responded, “They are an inspiration.”
The court also said police permission for a protest was not intended to stop people from demonstrating. Its purpose was to prevent unwanted people from joining the group and to ensure that a peaceful protest did not turn violent.
“The two petitioners here are at the forefront. When you go and break a barricade, the chances of 10 or 20 more people violating the 163 prohibitory order are very bright. There might be persons who might not be in your control and who might do things. We have seen it happening outside our country. Student protest has now gone into arson, looting, burning,” the court said.
While allowing Das and Ranka to withdraw the case, Justice Prasad clarified that he had not made any observations on its merits.
The two leaders had challenged the magistrate's October 19 order sending them to judicial custody for two days. They were taken into custody on October 13 after allegedly climbing over a locked gate to enter Jantar Mantar.
In their petition, the CJP leaders described the magistrate's order as illegal and arbitrary and sought to have it set aside. They said Das and Ranka had remained in custody for six days despite submitting the required sureties several times.
“The mandatory procedure under Section 140 BNSS was not followed for rejecting the surety, showing complete misapplication of the law in the impugned order. That delay and obstruction in the acceptance and verification of sureties frustrates the very purpose of release,” the petition said.
It added, “The learned SEM has arbitrarily exercised their powers to extend judicial custody of the petitioners under Section 135(3) BNSS. This is because the basis of judicial custody is ‘in default of execution of the bond’. However, the basis is incorrect in view of the petitioner's sureties produced on 19.10.2026 being in accordance with law.”
The High Court ultimately declined to intervene in the leaders' custody, allowing them to withdraw their petition and directing them to pursue their case before the Special Executive Magistrate and, if required, the appellate court.
- Ends