The Delhi High Court questioned Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) activists Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka over their plea in the Jantar Mantar trespassing case and suggested that they withdraw their plea against judicial custody. The activists agreed to withdraw the petition temporarily as the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) court was scheduled to reconsider their sureties later in the day.
Justice Subramonium Prasad advised the duo to await the outcome of the proceedings before the SEM court before pursuing further legal remedies. Advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the activists, agreed to withdraw the plea for the time being, according to Bar and Bench.
Delhi High Court questions surety requirement
During the hearing, Justice Prasad questioned whether insisting on a surety could be considered unlawful when a person had allegedly breached a preventive bond.
“Here is a case where one preventive notice has been broken and when you give for second preventive notice…A person goes there gives a bond, breaks the bond, correct or not we will see later.. Breaks the bond in which case…in such a case, insistence on a surety, can it be said to be that illegal or that much against the law?” the judge asked, according to Bar and Bench.
The judge also referred to the possible consequences of breaching barricades during a protest, observing that such actions could encourage others to violate restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
‘Your remedy actually lies in revision’
Justice Prasad suggested that the activists first approach the appropriate revisional court rather than immediately seeking relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“You are a person who has actually broken a bond…Your remedy actually lies in revision. There is a difference between maintainability and entertainability. Maintainable it is. I do not see the difference between 2 kilometers there and 2 kilometers there (the jurisdictional court). If it is a revisable order why come in Article 226?” the judge observed.
The court advised the petitioners to wait for the SEM court’s decision on their sureties before deciding their next legal step. It indicated that they could approach the revisional court if the magistrate’s decision went against them.
Lawyer challenges custody extension
Chimni argued that the SEM court’s October 19 order was legally flawed because the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to extend the activists’ custody in the circumstances.
He also questioned the rejection of the sureties, arguing that the magistrate had not properly examined the individuals presented for that purpose.
“The order says no other surety is present. There were two sureties, but the SEM did not even call for them,” Chimni argued.
Why were the CJP activists detained?
Delhi Police detained Das and Ranka on October 13 after they allegedly entered the barricaded Jantar Mantar protest site by climbing its gates. They were sent to judicial custody for five days on October 14, with the SEM court extending their custody by another two days on October 19.
The magistrate rejected the sureties after identifying concerns over their suitability. According to the order, one surety’s photograph did not match the photograph on his Aadhaar card, while the other could not provide basic details about Saurav Das.
What the activists argued in their plea
Das and Ranka contended that they had remained in custody despite repeatedly furnishing sureties. They challenged the extension of custody under Section 135(3) of the BNSS and alleged that the magistrate had relied on the police’s application without independently assessing the need for continued detention.
They also argued that a protest at a de-notified site was primarily a regulatory issue rather than a threat to public order. The petition relied on the 2018 Delhi High Court judgement in Aldanish Rein v State of NCT of Delhi to argue that a person should be released on a personal bond while sureties are being verified.
The activists further contended that the magistrate had not followed the applicable legal requirements concerning surety fitness, the number of sureties and the bond amount.
Advocates Abhik Chimni and Pranjal Abrol appeared for the activists. Delhi Police was represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit.
