Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka move Delhi High Court against judicial custody

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) activists Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have approached the Delhi High Court against a special executive magistrate (SEM) court order sending them to judicial custody till October 21.

They have alleged that their continued detention violates their fundamental right to liberty.

The CJP's legal head, Ratna Singh, said they would be seeking an urgent hearing and would request the Court to get the matter listed today.

Notably, the Delhi Police detained Das and Ranka on October 13 after they allegedly entered the barricaded Jantar Mantar site by climbing its gates. 

On October 14, they were sent to judicial custody for five days. On October 19, the custody was extended for two more days.

In its October 19 order, the SEM court said that Das and Ranka's conduct showed that they have no respect for the law and that there are serious concerns about them breaching peace and tranquillity. 

It held that their assurance that they would not repeat the alleged conduct did not inspire confidence in light of their previous actions.

The Court said that they showed "habitualness" by calling for protest at de-notified areas.

Further, the SEM also rejected the sureties produced for Ranka and Das after finding them unfit. It noted a mismatch between the photograph on one of the sureties' bond and his Aadhaar card. 

The Court said that he [the surety] failed to produce another valid identity document and gave unsatisfactory answers.  The other surety could not provide basic details of Saurav Das. The Court also found that neither surety could ensure the respondents’ presence before it. 

Das and Ranka have now approached the High Court against their custody.

In this petition, Das and Ranka have contended that they have remained in custody for six days despite repeatedly furnishing sureties.

They have argued that the magistrate wrongly extended their judicial custody under Section 135(3) BNSS on the ground that they had defaulted in executing the required bond, despite their sureties having been produced in accordance with law.

The plea states that the SEM order mechanically relies on the police's application without recording an independent assessment of the circumstances warranting continued custody.

Further, they argue that a protest at a denotified site is, at its highest, a question of regulation, not a threat to public order.

"That a restraint on the liberty of the Petitioners founded on an apprehension of breach of tranquillity or public order and attributed to them, must satisfy the test of Article 19(3) of the Constitution," the plea states.

On the issue of surety, they rely on a 2018 Delhi High Court judgment in Aldanish Rein v State of NCT of Delhi to argue that a person should be released on a personal bond while verification of the sureties is pending.

The plea further alleges that the magistrate rejected their sureties on grounds that they could not guarantee the petitioners’ appearance before the court and could not recall their parentage.

The CJP activists contend that Section 140 BNSS permits rejection of a surety only if the person is found unfit for the bond. They have also argued that the magistrate failed to specify the number of sureties, the bond amount and the duration of the bond, as required under Section 130 BNSS.