New Delhi: The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has accused Delhi Police and other authorities of deliberately delaying the release of its leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, alleging that court proceedings were prolonged and four bail sureties were rejected on what the party described as vague grounds.
The allegations came on Sunday as the two leaders remained in judicial custody following their arrest on October 13 for allegedly entering Jantar Mantar by scaling its locked gates. The site had been denotified as a designated protest venue a day earlier. They were remanded to five days of judicial custody on October 14.
The controversy over their release also coincided with Delhi Police registering a non-cognisable report against unidentified persons over alleged threats received by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) hearing the matter.
CJP representatives alleged that the proceedings had been diverted towards the reported threat instead of focusing on the release applications and verification of sureties. Delhi Police had not responded to the party’s allegations at the time of the report.
The party has said it will pursue legal remedies before higher judicial forums, maintaining that the two leaders are being kept in custody through deliberate delays. These allegations remain the party’s account of the proceedings, and the legal issues surrounding the arrests and release applications remain subject to judicial consideration.
CJP founder alleges deliberate delay in release
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke accused the authorities of using delaying tactics to prevent Das and Ranka from being released.
In a post on X, Dipke alleged that the state was deliberately prolonging the detention of the two leaders despite what the party considers a lack of legal grounds for keeping them behind bars.
“The state is deliberately prolonging Ashu and Saurav’s illegal arrest by using every dirty trick in the book to delay court proceedings and prevent their release,” Dipke wrote.
“They have no legal grounds to keep them behind bars, so they are resorting to delaying tactics to keep them there,” he added.
The party has argued that the proceedings should focus on the legal basis for the arrests and the requirements for processing the release applications. It has also questioned the time taken to verify the sureties submitted on behalf of the two leaders.
The claims have not been independently established. The police’s position on the allegations was not available at the time of reporting.
Ratna Singh questions SEM court proceedings
CJP legal head Ratna Singh also criticised the handling of the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate in Delhi. She alleged that a hearing scheduled for noon was delayed by several hours, with the magistrate and the public prosecutor arriving at around 5.30 pm.
Singh further claimed that the public prosecutor, who had allegedly failed to appear for four consecutive days, attended the proceedings on Sunday and attempted to shift attention to a reported threatening message received by the magistrate.
“The Public Prosecutor, who failed to appear for four consecutive days, suddenly arrived today and attempted to divert the proceedings toward an alleged threatening message,” Singh said.
According to Singh, the CJP’s lawyers asked the magistrate to identify the person who had allegedly sent the threat and initiate appropriate action. She said their submissions on the matter were not heard.
“Our lawyers have said that if someone has threatened you, you should take action against them. Put their number in the order. Tell us their name,” she said.
Singh questioned the relevance of the alleged threat to the proceedings concerning Das and Ranka, arguing that no verification or supporting documentation had been placed on record, according to her account.
“What does this have to do with Ashutosh and Saurav’s case?” she asked.
Her remarks reflected the party’s contention that the reported threat should be handled separately and should not delay consideration of the two leaders’ release.
Police register report over alleged threat to magistrate
Delhi Police registered a non-cognisable report against unidentified persons over alleged threats received by the Special Executive Magistrate handling the matter.
Details about the reported message, including its content and the identity of the sender, were not immediately available. Police had also not publicly responded to the CJP’s allegations about the conduct of the proceedings.
The reported threat introduced a separate issue into an already contentious legal process. While the party questioned why the matter had featured during the hearing, the available information did not establish who sent the message or whether it was connected to the case involving Das and Ranka.
The registration of a non-cognisable report records a complaint concerning an alleged incident but does not, by itself, establish that the allegations are true or identify the person responsible.
The circumstances surrounding the message and the action taken by the authorities would need to be clarified through the relevant process.
Four sureties allegedly rejected
Another major point raised by the CJP concerned the verification of sureties submitted for the release of its leaders. Singh alleged that the process had been delayed and that four sureties were rejected on grounds she described as vague.
She questioned why a fixed deposit receipt carrying a bank stamp required further approval, arguing that the party had not been given a clear explanation for the delay.
“Nothing on record with respect to verification. Nothing on record with respect to Saurav and Ashutosh,” Singh said.
The surety process is an important part of proceedings in which release is subject to specified conditions. The documents submitted and the requirements for their acceptance depend on the applicable directions and the authority handling the matter.
The CJP alleged that the rejection of the four sureties had contributed to the continued detention of Das and Ranka. However, the available account did not include the specific grounds recorded for rejecting each surety or an official explanation from the authorities.
Without those details, it is not possible to independently assess the reasons for the rejections or determine whether the verification process complied with the relevant requirements.
Singh also alleged that the hearing did not address the merits of the case and was instead dominated by procedural issues.
“The conspiracy that they have made, that Ashutosh and Saurav should not be released, was completely visible today. We all saw it. Today, there was no discussion on the case. There was no argument on merit,” she alleged.
“This is an illegal arrest. This is a conspiracy by the state. This is a conspiracy by the Delhi Police that they want to keep Saurav and Ashutosh in jail,” she added.
These statements represent the party’s allegations and have not been independently verified.
CJP says it followed directions from higher courts
Singh also questioned the functioning of the SEM courts and alleged that the authorities had failed to follow the prescribed legal process in a timely manner.
She said the party’s lawyers had approached the lower court after being directed by higher judicial forums to follow the established hierarchy and pursue the matter through the appropriate channels.
“When we go to the higher courts, they tell us to follow the process. Go to the lower courts. Start from the bottom. We followed everything,” Singh said.
She described the handling of the matter as an alleged misuse of power and claimed that the delays had prevented the lawyers from obtaining a decision on the substance of the release applications.
The party has said it intends to approach higher judicial forums to challenge what it describes as deliberate obstruction and prolonged detention.
The legal questions surrounding the arrests, the sureties and the proceedings before the SEM will need to be assessed through the applicable law and the relevant court records.
CJP had warned of further legal action
On Saturday, the party said it had consulted senior advocate Kapil Sibal and warned that it would initiate legal action if Das and Ranka were not released by Sunday.
“If Ashu and Saurav are not released by tomorrow, we will pursue legal action against all those who deliberately ensured that they continue to be in illegal custody, especially when they have not committed nor charged with any offence,” the party said in a post on X.
“The deliberate use of delaying tactics to keep them behind bars cannot go unchallenged. Those responsible will be held accountable,” it added.
The statement indicated that the party intended to challenge the continued detention and seek accountability from those it believes were responsible for the delays.
The latest allegations followed the arrests on October 13, after Das and Ranka allegedly entered Jantar Mantar by scaling its locked gates. The site had been denotified as a designated protest venue on October 12, according to the account of events provided by the party and the report.
The two leaders were remanded to five days of judicial custody on October 14. The subsequent dispute over their release has centred on the processing of sureties, the timing of the hearing and the alleged threat received by the magistrate.
Protest over electoral rolls and Jantar Mantar
The CJP has been protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that the exercise threatens voters’ rights.
The party has also opposed the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. Its leaders have maintained that they unfurled the national flag and raised slogans at the location.
The dispute over the two leaders’ detention has therefore unfolded against the backdrop of the party’s wider campaign concerning electoral rolls and the right to protest.
The CJP’s allegations have raised questions about the handling of the release proceedings, but the available information does not independently establish that the authorities deliberately obstructed the process. An assessment would require the relevant court orders, the reasons recorded for rejecting the sureties and the authorities’ response.
For now, the party says it will pursue legal remedies to secure the release of Das and Ranka and challenge what it describes as an unlawful delay. The next developments will depend on the proceedings before the competent judicial authorities and any further information disclosed by the police or the court.