New Delhi: Extending their judicial custody by two days, a Delhi Special Executive Magistrate Monday said that the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka “show no respect for law and their habitualness in calling protest at de-notified areas”.
Remarking that “the grounds of apprehension as presented before me apparently suggests that the conduct of the respondents is not above board”, the magistrate also rejected the sureties presented, citing a “mismatch in photos”.
Monday’s developments come after Das and Ranka were placed in preventive detention last week under Sections 126 and 170 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for allegedly violating their bond to maintain peace.
‘Mobilised & enticed public’
The Station House Officer of Parliament Street Police Station filed an application for extension of judicial custody of Das and Ranka, seeking five days. The Investigation Officer submitted that there is “still imminent continued threat on account of recent development in the present case i.e. receipt of anonymous WhatsApp message/communication to the Ld. Predecessor for which separate D.D Entry stands registered”.
The Investigating Officer (IO) further stated that both the respondents are members of CJP, and “they mobilised and enticed the general public to assemble and stage protest at Jantar Mantar, which has been de-notified as a designated protest site.”
The IO, assisted by the counsel, had argued that “earlier also the respondents have taken permission, which was allowed as per law only on the basis of their assurance that they would strictly adhere to the terms of permission but they failed to adhere”.
The IO had submitted that the present respondents while flouting their own undertaking made on 11 October before the SEM of South-West District “have again made a call to the public at large to assemble at Jantar Mantar in furtherance of Protest and their demands which apparently shows the apprehension to commit further offence”.
The submissions said, “It is further submitted that the respondents, through the social media posts has repeatedly called for protest at non-designated site such as Jantar Mantar and Connaught Place. It is further submitted that there are other notified area of protest such but the respondents are adamant in protesting at the de-notified area.”
Meanwhile, the counsel for the respondents argued that the “respondents be immediately released”, and the “respondents will not repeat the offence”. “It is further submitted that there is no mention of apprehension to repeat offence in the application moved. It is further argued they have not made any calls after 10.10.2026.”
The counsel also submitted that the respondent did not give any call for protest after 10 October and both the “respondents individually went to the Jantar Mantar.”
After hearing the arguments, Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj said in the court order, “I find that the respondents have deliberately breached their Bonds dated 11.10.2026 as submitted before the Ld. SEM, South-West District and immediately committed the breach of peace in this case.”
He said, “Further, at this stage, the grounds of apprehension as presented before me apparently suggests that the conduct of the respondents is not above board; rather it shows no respect for law and their habitualness in calling protest at de-notified areas.”
“The Statement of respondents before this Court, during the arguments, that they will not repeat this offence in future does not inspire confidence based on conduct and material placed on record by the IO, in the form of application seeking further detention. The application filed by IO is supported by substantial material on record, raising serious concerns regarding the likelihood of breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility, which cannot be brushed aside without proper consideration,” the SEM noted in the court order.
He said that considering the “imminent apprehension, past conduct of the respondent and the submissions advanced on both sides, I deem it fit that an opportunity be given to the respondents to file and place on record their submissions in writing within 2 days, with advance copy to the Investigating Officer”.
Also Read: Crush the CJP, spare Rahul Gandhi? Modi govt’s two faces on protest
Sureties rejected
Besides, the order said, the fresh sureties on behalf of respondents was presented before the SEM. “Upon repeated request of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, I held the inquiry as to fitness of the sureties and found them unfit to stand as surety as there is apparent mismatch of photographs in Bond and Aadhar card of surety Mr. Teerath for which he could not produce any other valid Identity Proof and gave vague/unsatisfactory answers.”
The SEM further mentioned in the court order, that the surety, namely Ms. Mannu Raj Anand, “failed to even give basic details (such as details as mentioned in surety bond i.e. parentage, address, etc) of the respondent Sourav Das for which he was standing as surety”.
“Moreover, the inquiry conducted revealed that both the Sureties has no control over the Respondents to produce them before the Court, which is primary essence of keeping Surety. No other Surety present at present. In such a situation, respondents are directed to furnish fresh Sureties,” said the order.
The court has re-notified 21 October as the date for further proceedings and for reply, if any.
“In the meantime, having considered the material on record and the continuing necessity of preventive measures as brought out in the application, both respondents are remanded to judicial custody till 21.10.2026. They shall be produced before this Court on 21.10.2026 at 2:00 PM,” the court order said.
Das, Ranka remain in preventive detention
Das and Ranka continue to be in preventive detention under sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS. Under Section 126 of the BNSS, a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) can demand a bond from individuals in detention to ensure peace in situations where a breach of peace or a public disturbance is suspected.
Section 170, on the other hand, empowers the police to arrest individuals without an arrest warrant or a magistrate’s order if they have knowledge of a design to commit a cognisable offence and the offence cannot be prevented by any other means.
A senior Delhi Police officer, confirming the development, said, “The court has granted two more days in judicial custody to Das and Ranka. We had asked the court for five days.”
“The reasoning we provided was that the situation is still the same. We have to maintain peace, we have not been able to see positive changes, we have sought for extension in judicial custody, to ensure there is no plan for a protest that breaches peace. Until things get back to normalcy,” the official told ThePrint, requesting anonymity.
Separate from the two First Information Reports registered against Ranka and Das at Connaught Place and Parliament Street police stations for trespassing, these proceedings arise from a kalandra report (police report detailing grounds for preventive detention) submitted to an Executive Magistrate seeking preventive action to maintain peace.
Sureties (a third person standing in as a guarantor) were required for their release, but the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) rejected all four offers. Two were rejected because the people standing surety had previously been detained. Another was rejected on the grounds that the person was not a Delhi resident, while the proceedings were being held in Delhi.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: Delhi Ramlila’s fourth effigy is a pink, moustached man with a cockroach crawling up his chest