The CJP has maintained that the two leaders entered the premises to unfurl the national flag and raise slogans. The party has also been opposing the decision to remove Jantar Mantar’s status as a designated protest site.
/pratidin/media/member_avatars/2025/05/21/2025-05-21t080305049z-8.png)
New Update
/pratidin/media/media_files/2026/10/19/web-cjp-2026-10-19-22-25-26.jpeg)
The judicial custody of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das was extended by two days on Monday, following their arrest over a protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
The two leaders were produced before a Special Executive Magistrate at Mandir Marg police station for the proceedings and were subsequently taken back to Tihar Jail. They are scheduled to be produced before the magistrate again on Wednesday, October 21.
Ranka and Das were detained on October 13 after allegedly entering Jantar Mantar by climbing over its locked gates. The site was recently denotified as a designated protest location. They were initially sent to five days of judicial custody on October 14.
The CJP has maintained that the two leaders entered the premises to unfurl the national flag and raise slogans. The party has also been opposing the decision to remove Jantar Mantar’s status as a designated protest site.
Reacting to the latest development, CJP legal head Ratna Singh criticised the proceedings and questioned the grounds for extending the leaders’ custody.
She alleged that the authorities had failed to present sufficient reasons to justify keeping the two leaders in custody, adding that the party’s lawyers had raised legal objections during the hearing.
Singh also claimed that the proceedings were delayed and alleged that the authorities were using procedural measures to prevent the leaders from being released.
She further questioned the rejection of sureties, arguing that pending verification alone should not be a reason to keep someone in judicial custody.
The CJP has accused the authorities of deliberately delaying the proceedings and curbing the party’s right to protest. These allegations were made by the party, and no response from the police was included in the available account.