The Delhi High Court has agreed to conduct an urgent hearing today regarding a plea filed by two political leaders, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, who are currently challenging an order extending their judicial custody. The leaders, associated with the Cockroach Janta Party, were remanded into custody following their attempts to organize protests at Jantar Mantar, a location that has been officially de-notified as a protest site. The matter has been listed before Justice Subramonium Prasad, following an urgent mention made by the petitioners’ legal team.

The current judicial custody of both activists is set to expire today, and they are scheduled to be produced before the Special Executive Magistrate Court. This procedural development follows a series of custodial extensions initiated after their initial apprehension on October 13. The case has drawn significant attention due to the underlying questions regarding the application of preventive detention powers and the procedural requirements for securing release through surety bonds under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Developments at the Magistrate Level

The two activists were initially apprehended on October 10 at an airport, where they were released after being directed to furnish peace bonds amounting to ₹50,000. However, their subsequent return to Jantar Mantar on October 14, where they attempted to unfurl the national flag, led to their arrest and subsequent remand. The Special Executive Magistrate, Mahesh Kumar Meena, initially granted a five-day judicial custody period. This period was later extended by two days by Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj in an order dated October 19.

In justifying the extension of custody, the magistrate’s order noted that the police had submitted material suggesting a potential for the continued breach of peace and public disorder. The court’s order highlighted that the activists’ past conduct and their insistence on staging protests at de-notified sites raised concerns about their future behavior. Furthermore, the magistrate rejected the initial sureties provided by the petitioners, citing discrepancies in documentation and an inability of the sureties to provide satisfactory details during the inquiry. The court observed that one of the individuals presented as a surety could not produce a valid identity document and that another was unable to provide basic information regarding the personal details of the petitioner they were supposed to guarantee.

Contentions Regarding Right to Liberty

The petition filed before the Delhi High Court challenges the October 19 order, arguing that the continued detention of Das and Ranka is arbitrary and constitutes an infringement of their fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners contend that they have effectively complied with all legal requirements to secure their release, yet the Special Executive Magistrate has refused to accept the sureties provided. According to the plea, the rejection of these sureties lacked a proper legal basis and failed to adhere to the mandatory procedures outlined under Section 140 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The legal team representing the activists has argued that the detention is based on an incorrect interpretation of Section 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which allows for detention in default of bond execution. The petitioners claim that the bonds were indeed properly executed and the sureties produced on October 19 were in full compliance with the law. Their petition asserts: “The mandatory procedure under Section 140 BNSS was not followed for rejecting the surety, showing complete misapplication of the law in the impugned order. That delay and obstruction in the acceptance and verification of sureties frustrates the very purpose of release.”

Furthermore, the petition addresses the broader claim of public order. The lawyers for the petitioners argue that protesting at a location that has been de-notified is primarily a matter of administrative regulation rather than an existential threat to public tranquility . They maintain that the apprehension of a breach of peace must be based on a " proximate and real nexus with disturbance of public order " rather than speculative concerns or remote possibilities.

Shift to Crime Branch Oversight

Amidst the legal challenges, the investigation into the activities of the Cockroach Janta Party leaders has been escalated. Sources indicate that the Delhi Police have transferred the case files related to the October 13 incident to the Crime Branch. This transfer coincides with the ongoing procedural disputes and the activists' attempt to secure an urgent judicial review of their detention. The Crime Branch is expected to review the material gathered thus far, which includes evidence regarding the obstruction of police personnel and the alleged breach of peace bonds executed earlier in the month.

During the proceedings before the magistrate, the defense argued that the activists had not issued any further calls for demonstrations following their initial detention on October 10. They submitted that the visits made to the protest site were independent and did not constitute an organized effort to incite public unrest. Despite these submissions, the magistrate insisted that the assurance provided by the petitioners did not sufficiently inspire confidence in the court, given the material submitted by the investigating officer. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to furnish fresh, verifiable sureties, a process which their counsel claims has been deliberately stalled to prevent their release.

Awaiting Judicial Intervention

The timing of the High Court hearing is critical, as the two-day extension of the activists' custody ends today. Should the magistrate’s court proceed with the case in the absence of a direct stay or a specific instruction from the High Court, the petitioners will once again be brought before the Special Executive Magistrate. The legal team for the activists has expressed urgency, noting that their clients should not remain incarcerated due to potential delays in the administrative verification process.

The High Court’s intervention will be limited to examining the legality of the magistrate’s order, specifically whether the refusal of the sureties was justifiable under the current legal framework. As the matter proceeds, the focus remains on the balance between the state's power to maintain public order through preventive detention and the individual’s right to seek release through statutory processes. The decision reached during today’s hearing is expected to determine the immediate status of the petitioners, pending the next steps of the investigation now under the purview of the Crime Branch. The court is expected to deliberate on whether the continued detention, despite the production of sureties, meets the threshold of necessity required for such measures, or if it constitutes an excessive use of authority under the existing provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The hearing will also serve as a benchmark for how local administrative authorities handle surety verification processes in cases involving political protests.