The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the judicial custody of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. It asked them to wait for the hearing before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), scheduled later in the day. If their grievance continues, they can approach the appellate court. The case was taken up after the leaders sought an urgent hearing. The high court is shut for the Dussehra break.
Justice Subramonium Prasad allowed the two co-conveners to withdraw their plea. He said a writ petition under Article 226 was not an appropriate remedy for a “repeat case” of violating a ‘peace’ bond. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma said the matter is listed before the SEM for furnishing fresh sureties.
Das and Ranka, along with other CJP workers, displayed the national flag at Jantar Mantar, which had been denotified as a protest site. They shouted slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. They were detained and placed under preventive arrest on October 13. They allegedly climbed over a locked gate to enter. An SEM first sent them to judicial custody for five days on October 14. A newly appointed SEM at Mandir Marg police station then ordered their remand till October 21 after they were produced on Monday.
Advocate Abhik Chimni, for the petitioners, argued they should be released on a personal bond. He said the SEM has no jurisdiction to extend judicial custody. He also said the SEM’s insistence on a surety was not sustained in law. Justice Prasad said the petitioners allegedly violated a bond to maintain tranquillity by entering a de-notified site. He asked whether authorities were not entitled to seek a “stricter” surety in a “repeat case”.
The judge said questions about the petitioners’ locus and motive were also significant. He noted they were first involved in a student protest, but now there was a different cause and a statement about “regime change”. He said, “Keep the debate for an appropriate proceeding.” On learning Das and Ranka are 27 and 31, he remarked, “That means you are not Gen-Z.” The lawyer replied, “They are an inspiration.”
The court said the purpose of police permission for a protest is not to stop anyone. It is to keep “unwanted persons” out and stop a peaceful agitation from turning violent. It said that when leaders break a barricade, many more people may violate the Section 163 prohibitory order. It added that student protests elsewhere have gone into arson and looting. The judge clarified that he made no observations on the merits.
In their petition, Das and Ranka challenged the SEM’s October 19 order. They called it illegal and arbitrary. They said they remained in custody for six days despite submitting the required sureties several times. They said the procedure under Section 140 BNSS was not followed in rejecting the surety. They also said the SEM wrongly used Section 135(3) BNSS to extend custody, since their sureties produced on October 19 were in accordance with law.
Source: Business Standard
