The Delhi High Court on October 21 permitted Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) activists Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to withdraw their petition challenging the extension of their judicial custody by a Special Executive Magistrate. Justice Subramonium Prasad suggested that they await the outcome of proceedings before the Magistrate, where their sureties were to be reconsidered, before pursuing further legal remedies.
The Court did not examine the merits of their challenge or rule on the legality of their continued custody.
Background
Das and Ranka were detained in connection with protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. They were initially released after furnishing peace bonds during preventive proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The police subsequently alleged that they breached the conditions of their bonds by going to Jantar Mantar after the site had been de-notified as a protest location. They were remanded to five days of judicial custody on October 14.
On October 19, the Special Executive Magistrate extended their custody by two days and rejected the sureties they had furnished, citing discrepancies in identity documents and concerns about the sureties' suitability.
The activists challenged that order, arguing that their custody had been extended despite their efforts to furnish valid sureties.
During the hearing, Justice Prasad questioned why the petitioners had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when a revision remedy was available against the Magistrate's order.
“Liberty is sacrosanct. But when the Code already provides a remedy, why not pursue it?” the judge observed while discussing the alternative legal route available to the petitioners.
The Court also examined the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach of the peace bonds. Justice Prasad observed that a breach of a preventive bond could raise concerns about the possibility of further disturbances, particularly when other people might join a protest.
“If you go there and break a barricade, there is a strong possibility that 10–20 others will follow. I am not saying whether it is good or bad. Some people may not be under your control, and they may do things,” the judge remarked.
The Court clarified that the question of whether the bonds had actually been breached could be examined separately.
Advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for Das and Ranka, argued that the October 19 order was legally unsustainable. He contended that the Magistrate had rejected the sureties arbitrarily and had failed to properly assess the circumstances justifying continued custody.
Chimni also submitted that two fresh sureties had been furnished but were not called for verification. He questioned whether the alleged breach of a personal bond justified the exercise of power under Section 135(3) of the BNSS.
Justice Prasad suggested that the petitioners first await the Magistrate's decision on their sureties and then consider the remedies available under law.
After the matter was briefly passed over to allow counsel to take instructions, Chimni informed the Court that the petitioners wished to withdraw their plea.
The Delhi High Court permitted the withdrawal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the petitioners free to pursue remedies available under law.
