Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka Challenge Two-Day Custody Extension Under Section 135(3) BNSS
CJP Leaders Approach Delhi High Court
Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have approached the Delhi High Court. Their petition challenges a Special Executive Magistrate’s (SEM) order extending their custody by two days. The dispute over CJP Leaders Judicial Custody raises questions about preventive detention and executive magisterial powers.
The petitioners sought an urgent hearing despite the High Court’s Dussehra vacation. They argued that their continued detention lacked sufficient legal justification.
The plea challenges the SEM’s decision under Section 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Furthermore, the petitioners questioned the procedure that led to the extension of their custody.
Delhi Police Detained CJP Leaders on October 14
Delhi Police apprehended Das and Ranka on October 14, 2026.
The incident followed their attempt to unfurl the national flag at Jantar Mantar. They were participating in a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Following their detention, Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena ordered five days of judicial custody.
The authorities produced the petitioners again on October 19, after their initial remand period ended.
However, newly appointed Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj extended their custody by another two days.
Consequently, the CJP leaders approached the Delhi High Court to challenge the extension.
Petition Challenges Preventive Detention Under BNSS
The petitioners argued that the SEM exercised preventive detention powers arbitrarily.
Their counsel questioned the application of Section 135(3) BNSS.
According to the plea, the magistrate failed to properly consider the circumstances surrounding their detention.
The petitioners also challenged the reasons for refusing their release on bond.
Moreover, they raised concerns about the fairness of proceedings before an executive magistrate.
The petition identified several legal grounds against the custody extension.
CJP Leaders Question Rejection of Sureties
The petitioners challenged the SEM’s conclusion that they remained in custody because they lacked suitable sureties.
The SEM referred to their failure to execute the required bond.
However, counsel disputed this reasoning.
According to the petition, valid sureties appeared before the magistrate on October 19.
They also carried duly executed peace bonds and Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs).
Nevertheless, the petitioners alleged that the magistrate did not provide a reasonable opportunity to present these documents.
Therefore, they argued that the SEM lacked sufficient grounds to continue their detention.
Petition Disputes Aadhaar Photograph Objections
The SEM’s order also identified discrepancies in the sureties’ identity documents.
Specifically, the magistrate noted differences between photographs on the bond documents and Aadhaar cards.
However, the petitioners described these issues as minor administrative discrepancies.
They alleged that the authorities relied on these objections to prevent their release.
Furthermore, they argued that such discrepancies should not automatically justify continued custody.
The plea therefore questioned the magistrate’s decision to reject the sureties.
Protest at Jantar Mantar Raises Public Order Questions
The petitioners also challenged the authorities’ assessment of their protest activities.
They maintained that their demonstration at Jantar Mantar was non-violent.
According to the plea, holding a protest at a de-notified site may raise administrative concerns.
However, the petitioners argued that such conduct does not necessarily threaten public peace.
They also disputed the claim that their actions justified prolonged detention.
Instead, they described the matter as one involving protest regulation.
Consequently, they urged the High Court to examine whether the authorities had sufficient grounds to extend their custody.
Petition Raises Conflict of Interest Concerns
The petition also questioned the institutional structure of executive magisterial proceedings.
The petitioners highlighted that the SEM holds the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) within Delhi Police.
According to the plea, this arrangement creates a structural conflict of interest.
The petitioners argued that the same police institution effectively performs prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions.
As a result, they questioned the independence of the preventive proceedings.
Furthermore, they urged the High Court to examine the implications of this arrangement for procedural fairness.
The plea therefore raised concerns beyond the immediate custody extension.
SEM Cites Earlier Peace Bond Violations
The Special Executive Magistrate offered a different assessment of the petitioners’ conduct.
On October 19, SEM Ritu Raj accepted the Investigating Officer’s application seeking continued custody.
The magistrate referred to earlier preventive proceedings involving the petitioners.
According to the order, Das and Ranka had furnished peace bonds worth ₹50,000 on October 10.
Those proceedings followed their earlier detention at the airport under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS.
However, the SEM concluded that the petitioners had deliberately breached their previous peace bonds.
The magistrate relied on police material while assessing their conduct.
Magistrate Refers to Repeated Protest Calls
The SEM also considered the petitioners’ repeated calls for demonstrations at de-notified protest sites.
According to the order, these activities indicated a pattern of habitual conduct.
The magistrate therefore questioned whether the petitioners would comply with future peace requirements.
Moreover, the SEM found their assurances against repeating such activities unconvincing.
The order referred to police material supporting concerns about their conduct.
Consequently, the magistrate extended their custody by two additional days.
Delhi High Court Petition Seeks Urgent Relief
The petitioners challenged both the legal basis and the procedure behind the custody extension.
They maintained that the magistrate failed to properly assess the available sureties.
Additionally, they disputed the alleged public order threat arising from their protest.
The plea also questioned the institutional independence of executive magisterial proceedings.
These issues form the central grounds in the CJP Leaders Judicial Custody dispute.
The petitioners have therefore sought urgent intervention from the Delhi High Court.
Their challenge asks the Court to examine the SEM’s exercise of preventive powers under Section 135(3) BNSS.
The outcome will depend on the High Court’s assessment of the custody order, the bond requirements, and the petitioners’ legal objections.
