India
Delhi court extends CJP leaders’ custody until October 21
The order extends preventive detention despite disputed protest allegations.
The order extends preventive detention despite disputed protest allegations.
The defence disputes the alleged breach and says keeping the leaders in custody is not needed. Police asked for more time, citing repeated violations, renewed calls for protests and threats to public order. On October 19, the magistrate rejected or questioned new because some identity documents did not match. The court extended custody by two days, until October 21, and treated the alleged breach as intentional. This is a preventive process, not a final conviction. is separate from ordinary criminal prosecution. The related trespass case has moved to the . The October 21 hearing could lead to release, new conditions or further custody.
The matter was listed for October 21 at 2 p.m., when the court was expected to decide whether to release the leaders, extend custody or impose further conditions. The pending issue concerned preventive custody and alleged bond violations, while the Crime Branch investigation could continue separately. The available reports identify the hearing date but do not record its outcome.
Police transferred the case concerning the alleged entry into Jantar Mantar to the for investigation. The transfer indicates that the trespass allegation was being pursued as a separate investigative track alongside the preventive peace-bond proceedings. The reports do not establish that the transfer resulted in a charge sheet or conviction.
The magistrate extended custody until October 21 and directed that both leaders be produced at 2 p.m. The court cited apprehensions of breach of peace and disturbance of , while reports also described concern over repeated protest activity at . Both leaders remained in Tihar Jail pending the next hearing.
The observed that the leaders had deliberately breached the they executed on October 11. The finding was used to justify continued preventive custody and reflected the court’s assessment at the remand stage. It was not a final criminal conviction for trespass or another protest-related offence.
The court declined the fresh because of reported discrepancies in the identity documents submitted during the release process. The dispute affected whether the leaders could satisfy the conditions for release while the preventive proceedings continued. The surety issue was procedural and separate from deciding whether an ordinary criminal offence had been proved.
At the next hearing, police argued that Das and Ranka had a history of violating directions and could again issue protest calls or mobilise supporters. They sought continued detention on the ground that release could lead to another breach of peace. The request remained part of the rather than a final determination of criminal liability.
The five-day judicial-custody order was due to expire before the next scheduled proceeding. Police therefore sought continued detention, while the defence sought release and relied on the availability of . The magistrate had to decide whether the preventive concerns justified another short period of custody.
The defence objected to the police characterisation of the leaders’ conduct as a deliberate breach of their . Counsel also challenged the necessity of keeping them in custody over protest-related allegations and disputed the public-order rationale. The reports present the competing positions without resolving the underlying allegations through a criminal trial.
Police relied on what they described as repeated violations of lawful directions and earlier protest conduct. They argued that release could allow new protest calls, renewed mobilisation or another disturbance at a denotified site. These were police claims supporting , not findings that the alleged future conduct had occurred.
Following the five-day remand, both leaders were lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail. placed them under detention pending further proceedings before the magistrate, but did not by itself establish guilt for trespass, protest-related offences or breach of the peace bonds. The reported custody remained tied to the preventive public-order process.
Special Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena issued notices under and remanded both leaders for five days. The order cited alleged peace-bond violations, protest calls and attempts to mobilise people at Jantar Mantar. It also said that no had been produced at that stage and that custody was needed to maintain public peace and order.
Police took the two leaders into on allegations that they had violated the October 11 undertakings and continued calling protests at a restricted site. Police cited their previous conduct, possible renewed mobilisation and threats to public tranquillity. The action proceeded through executive-magistrate preventive proceedings rather than being described solely as an ordinary criminal arrest.
The police case said the leaders attempted to cross a locked gate or otherwise enter the . Reports also attributed to police an allegation that they intended to unfurl the during the protest. Those allegations linked the protest activity to both an alleged bond breach and a possible trespass-related case.
Police told the magistrate that the leaders issued further protest calls and sought to mobilise supporters after signing the October 11 bonds. The alleged conduct was presented as showing a continuing risk of breach of peace and public disturbance. The defence disputed the police account and the legal basis for continued custody.
The leaders were reported to have executed bonds requiring them to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year. Reports put the surety requirement at Rs 50,000 for each leader, subject to the magistrate’s process. A peace bond is a preventive condition, while judicial custody is a later consequence of an alleged breach of that condition.
Das and Ranka appeared before a after the October 10 intervention. The proceedings concerned preventive undertakings intended to reduce an apprehended breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. They were not, at that stage, a final conviction in an ordinary criminal prosecution.
Delhi Police said Jantar Mantar had been removed from the list of s, and later alleged that the leaders entered or attempted to reach the area without permission. The claim formed part of the basis for subsequent proceedings.
Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were detained in Delhi amid a planned CJP protest after police denied permission for the demonstration. They were later detained after entering or attempting to reach and were remanded to judicial custody.