Activists Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, associated with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), withdrew their petition before the Delhi High Court on Wednesday. The petition had directly challenged an order passed by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) court that remanded them to judicial custody until October 21.

During the proceedings, Justice Subramonium Prasad suggested that the two activists step back from their plea before the High Court for the time being. The bench observed that the SEM court was already scheduled to take up and reconsider the sureties submitted by Das and Ranka later that afternoon at 2 PM. Acting on behalf of the petitioners, Advocate Abhik Chimni accepted the court's observation and agreed to withdraw the petition.

Right from the beginning of the hearing, Justice Prasad addressed counsel representing Das and Ranka, asking:

"Here is a case where one preventive notice has been broken and when you give for second preventive notice...A person goes there gives a bond, breaks the bond, correct or not we will see later.. Breaks the bond in which case...in such a case, insistence on a surety, can it be said to be that illegal or that much against the law?"

Elaborating further on concerns surrounding public gatherings and regulatory compliance, the judge remarked:

"When you go and break a barricade, the chances of 10 or 20 more people in violation of Section 163 (BNSS) is very high. There may be persons who might not be in your and who may do things. We are seeing what is happening outside our country. Arson etc. You may have started with something you say is peaceful. For that purpose you take police permission which is to prevent unwanted persons who join your group and spoil your name."

Justice Prasad urged the petitioners to approach the revisional court before seeking direct constitutional intervention from the High Court, pointing out:

"You are a person who has actually broken a bond...Your remedy actually lies in revision. There is a difference between maintainability and entertainability. Maintainable it is. I do not see the difference between 2 kilometers there and 2 kilometers there (the jurisdictional court). If it is a revisable order why come in Article 226? When the matter is coming up today, why run here? Also, if it is a revisable order would it not be appropriate for you do withdraw this, see what happens at 2 PM [before SEM court] and then see what is available to you in law...Instead of arguing now, why not keep your powder dry for revision court and then this cort. Suppose things happen in your favour at 4'clock then all gone. If they don't happen in your favour then you can go to revisional court and then this court."

The court also raised questions about the profile of the petitioners, asking whether Das and Ranka belonged to "GenZ", and observed:

"People remain the same, cause is changing. Correct? The next question will be who are you. What are you? What is your association what is the purpose of your association? Please understand when there is apprehension of peace and书tranquillity, all these questions will assume importance...You are drawing the court into a debate which might ultimately not go in your favour."

Pressing their case, Advocate Chimni submitted that the SEM court’s order dated October 19 was fundamentally flawed on legal grounds, arguing that the magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to grant an extension of custody. He referred directly to the magistrate's order, which had flagged discrepancies in photographs as well as missing particulars concerning Das' parentage. Chimni argued:

"The order says no other surety is present. There were two sureties, but the SEM did not even call for them,"

Following these exchanges, the High Court stood down the matter briefly to allow counsel time to deliberate on whether to withdraw the petition or continue arguing for immediate relief.

The background of the case traces back to October 13, when Delhi Police took Das and Ranka into custody after they reportedly entered the barricaded area of Jantar Mantar by scaling its boundary gates. Following their detention, an SEM court remanded them to judicial custody on October 14 for an initial period of five days. On October 19, their detention was extended by an additional two days.

In its October 19 ruling, the SEM court stated that the conduct of Das and Ranka reflected an absence of respect for the rule of law and raised genuine apprehensions regarding breaches of public peace and order. The magistrate noted that their formal undertakings not to repeat such acts failed to inspire trust given their past conduct, observing that they demonstrated "habitualness" by organizing and calling for demonstrations at locations that had been formally de-notified for protests.

Additionally, the SEM court deemed the sureties presented on behalf of Ranka and Das unfit and turned them down. The court highlighted a visual discrepancy between the photograph affixed to one surety's bond and his Aadhaar card, adding that the individual was unable to furnish any alternative valid identity document and gave unsatisfactory responses. The second surety was unable to supply even basic details regarding Saurav Das. Consequently, the magistrate found that neither surety was in a position to guarantee that the two individuals would attend subsequent hearings.

Challenging these findings, Das and Ranka pointed out that they had spent six days in custody despite repeatedly presenting sureties before the magistrate. They argued that the SEM court erred in extending their custody under Section 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the claim that they had defaulted on furnishing the requisite bond, maintaining that their sureties had been produced in compliance with statutory procedure.

The petition further contended that the magistrate accepted the police's custody application in a mechanical fashion without independently recording reasons or circumstances that warranted keeping them behind bars. In addition, the petitioners maintained that staging a demonstration at a de-notified location is, at most, an administrative and regulatory issue rather than a genuine hazard to public order, stating:

"That a restraint on the liberty of the Petitioners founded on an apprehension of breach of tranquillity or public order and attributed to them, must satisfy the test of Article 19(3) of the Constitution,"

On the specific issue of surety verification, the plea cited a 2018 ruling of the Delhi High Court in Aldanish Rein v State of NCT of Delhi, asserting that an individual should be freed on personal bond while the administrative verification of sureties remains pending. The petition took issue with the SEM court rejecting their sureties simply because they could not guarantee the petitioners' attendance or recount parentage details.

The CJP activists submitted that Section 140 of the BNSS permits the rejection of a surety only if that person is found fundamentally unfit to act as a guarantor for the bond. They also argued that the magistrate neglected statutory mandates under Section 130 BNSS by failing to specify the necessary number of sureties, the total bond sum, and the operational duration of the bond.

Advocates Abhik Chimni and Pranjal Abrol appeared on behalf of Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. Delhi Police was represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma alongside Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit.