CJP Moves Delhi HC Against SEM Order Extending Custody of Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka; Seeks Urgent Hearing

New Delhi- The Cockroach Janta Party has approached the Delhi High Court against the order dated 19 October 2026 of the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), New Delhi District. The order kept party leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka in custody in preventive proceedings under Sections 126/170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioners say the order violates their Right to Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The party has asked the Chief Justice for an urgent hearing, including a night hearing, to secure their release. The SEM has listed the matter for 21 October.

Timeline: how the case unfolded

According to the petition’s List of Dates and Events:

• 10 October : The petitioners were detained from the aircraft on arrival at Terminal 3, IGI Airport, New Delhi.

• 11 October : Preventive action was taken under Sections 126/170 BNSS (DD No. 02A, PS Special Staff). Before the SEM, South-West District, they executed bail bonds of Rs. 50,000 each and were released under Section 135(3) BNSS. The matter was renotified for 27 October 2026. The same day, Jantar Mantar was denotified as a designated protest site by Order No. 2901-3050/Record Branch/PHQ. That denotification is challenged in W.P.(C) No. 1357/2026 before the Supreme Court and W.P.(C) No. 15166/2026 before the Delhi High Court.

• 13 October: The petitioners went to Jantar Mantar with the national flag. They were detained in the morning and taken to PS Jafarpur Kalan.

• 14 October: At about 2:30 AM they were brought to PS Parliament Street and shown as arrested under Sections 126/170 BNSS (DD No. 07A). The petition says every ground of arrest concerns events that had already occurred. The SEM, New Delhi District, issued notices under Section 130 BNSS and sent them to judicial custody for five days, since no sound surety had been produced at that stage. No duration or amount of bond was specified.

• 16 October: Applications were filed for acceptance of sureties and for release on personal bond pending verification, relying on Aldanish Rein. The fixed deposits were bank-verified.

• 17 October: Surety verification reports found the fixed deposits of Shri Bal Krishna Shukla and Shri Deepak Kumar “genuine and valid”, and both sureties were present at their addresses. The sureties were objected to only for antecedents and “association” with the petitioners.

• 18 October: The sureties presented on 16 October were rejected by the SEM.

• 19 October: The police sought a further five days of judicial custody, relying on events before 14 October, statements of third persons and other material outside the Kalandra, and an apprehension of breach of order. Petitioners’ counsel objected on maintainability and on merits, pressed for orders, and said they did not wish to file a reply. The SEM rejected the fresh sureties (Teerath and Mannu Raj Anand) and deferred the matter, seeking a reply from the petitioners on why there should not be an apprehension of breach of order.

The petition’s twelve grounds

1. Contrary to Aldanish Rein vs State of NCT of Delhi (2018 SCC OnLine Del 12207). The petition says the High Court held that once surety bonds are submitted, the arrested person should be released on personal bond while verification is pending. It says the petitioners remain in custody for 6 days despite furnishing sureties multiple times.

2. Arbitrary use of Section 135(3) BNSS. Custody was extended for “default of execution of the bond”, but the sureties produced on 19 October were in accordance with law.

3. No chance to present more sureties. The SEM found that no other surety was present, but the petitioners say two more sureties were available with duly executed bonds and FDRs, and no opportunity to present them was given.

4. Section 130 BNSS not followed. The magistrate did not specify the number of sureties, the bond amount or the term in any order, which the petition calls a prerequisite for proceedings under Section 135(3).

5. Verification is an inquiry into fitness. Relying on the Madras High Court in Sagayam @ Devasagayam v. State (2017 SCC OnLine Mad 1653), the petition says verification is not a “cruelling exercise”.

6. Inconsistent finding of imminent apprehension. By directing “fresh sureties” on 19 October, the SEM’s own order is inconsistent with any imminent threat that would justify custody.

7. Article 19(3) test. Curbs based on an apprehension of breach of public order need a proximate and real nexus, “a spark in a powder keg”, as held in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574.

8. Section 140 misapplied. A surety can be refused only if “an unfit person for the purposes of the bond”. The petition says the sureties were rejected because they allegedly had “no control” over the petitioners to produce them in court and could not recall a petitioner’s parentage.

9. Mandatory procedure under Section 140 not followed before rejecting the sureties.

10. Delay frustrates release. Delay and obstruction in accepting and verifying sureties defeat the purpose of release, citing Sujit Kumar Singh v. Director General of Prisons (2024:DHC:1860, W.P.(Crl) 748/2024).

11. Protest at a denotified site is a question of regulation, not a threat to public order, and the denotification itself is under challenge in the Supreme Court and the High Court.

12. No independent application of mind. The petition says every operative finding is drawn from the Investigating Officer’s application. It relies on Asha Pant v. State (2008) 102 DRJ 216, which says mechanical adoption of police material leaves the exercise of power “vulnerable to being invalidated”.

Legal Head Ratna Singh said: “There is absolutely no reason for Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to be behind bars for seven consecutive days. The grounds provided by the SEM are completely bizarre, absurd, and mechanically adopted from police applications. The fundamental rights of these two individuals are being blatantly infringed upon. Natural justice is something we all stand for, yet it is being completely ignored. We have approached the Delhi High Court so that constitutional liberties are upheld and both leaders walk free immediately.”

The party said no executive intimidation or judicial delay will deter it from peacefully fighting for institutional integrity, civil rights and electoral accountability.