Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on Wednesday withdrew their petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the extension of their judicial custody. The court allowed the withdrawal after hearing arguments concerning the procedure followed in their case.
An Executive Magistrate (SEM) court is scheduled to hear the matter later on Wednesday, as the judicial custody of both leaders ends today.
High court questions procedure followed after bail bonds
During the hearing, the Delhi High Court questioned the leaders' lawyer, Abhik Chimni, about the procedure followed after his clients furnished bail bonds and were allegedly found to have breached the conditions in connection with the Jantar Mantar trespass case.
The court observed that Das and Ranka had furnished bail bonds on October 11, the same day Jantar Mantar was de-notified as a designated protest site, before being arrested again. It questioned why the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for a breach of bail bonds had not been followed.
The high court had also pulled up the two leaders during the hearing of their plea challenging their extended judicial custody, noting that the SEM court was already scheduled to hear their case on Wednesday, when their custody was due to end.
The court granted Chimni time to seek instructions from his clients on whether they wished to withdraw the petition, have the high court decide the matter on its merits, or have it heard by the roster bench.
Court asks about petitioners' ages and Gen Z
During the proceedings, the high court asked about the ages of the two petitioners. Chimni informed the court that Saurav Das is 27 years old and Ashutosh Ranka is 32.
The court observed that the two leaders did not belong to Gen Z and asked what the term meant. After being told that Gen Z refers to people born after 1997, the court reiterated its observation that the petitioners were not part of that generation.
Following the hearing, counsel for Das and Ranka informed the high court that they wished to withdraw the petition challenging the extension of their judicial custody. The court subsequently allowed the withdrawal.