CJP leaders Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka get 2 more days in jail: What does law say

CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka will remain in judicial custody for at least two more days after a Special Executive Magistrate extended their detention. Their lawyers allege due process violations over the rejection of multiple sureties and plan to challenge the order, citing Supreme Court precedents on preventive detention.

In Short

• Lawyers allege due process violation in surety rejection
• SEM rejected eight sureties, raising legal concerns
• Experts call detention without inquiry unconscionable

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka will remain in judicial custody for at least two more days after a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) court in New Delhi extended their detention on Monday, rejecting the sureties presented on their behalf and directing them to produce alternative guarantors.

In its order, the SEM said Das and Ranka had “immediately flouted” the bond they signed on October 11 by going to protest at Jantar Mantar. The order also accused them of having “repeatedly called for protest at a non notified area”.

The matter has now been adjourned to October 21, with the magistrate directing the two leaders to produce other persons as sureties.

The CJP leaders’ lawyers have questioned the proceedings, alleging violations of due process and saying they will challenge the order before the appropriate court. They have argued that the rejection of multiple sureties and the continued detention of the two leaders run contrary to Supreme Court precedents governing preventive proceedings and the furnishing of bonds to maintain public peace.

SEM QUESTIONS SUITABILITY OF SURETIES

The SEM order said the two persons who appeared as sureties for Das and Ranka were not suitable. One had failed to submit proper documentation, while the other could not provide details about the person they were offering to stand surety for.

The magistrate also rejected them on the ground that the two sureties had “no control over the Respondents present to produce them in Court”.

The CJP has alleged that the SEM refused to accept persons who appeared to stand as sureties for the two leaders. Lawyers representing the party told India Today that eight different people had been rejected as sureties over the preceding four days.

The legal team has described the continued detention as unlawful and said the latest order would be challenged. The lawyers have not yet specified whether they would approach the District Magistrate with a bail plea or move the Delhi High Court through a writ petition.

LAWYERS ALLEGE VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

Lawyers appearing for the CJP leaders told India Today that the order was a “clear violation of the law and precedents set by the Supreme Court regarding due process and sureties”.

The proceedings concern the powers of an Executive Magistrate under Chapter IX of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with preventive action to maintain peace and public order and is comparable to provisions under Chapter VIII of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Section 130 of the BNSS requires a magistrate, when directing a person to show cause under the relevant provisions, to issue a written order setting out the substance of the information received, the amount and duration of the bond, and the number of sureties required, after considering their “sufficiency and fitness”.

The CJP legal team has argued that these safeguards must be followed and that preventive proceedings cannot be used to keep people in custody without complying with the prescribed legal process.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID

In the 1970 Madhu Limaye case, the Supreme Court clarified that preventive provisions under Chapter VIII of the CrPC were intended to prevent breaches of peace, not to punish people.

“The provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code are merely preventive in nature and are not to be used as a vehicle for punishment,” the court observed.

It also explained that the purpose of furnishing security or executing a bond was to prevent a possible breach of peace and maintain public tranquillity.

The Supreme Court has further emphasised that an Executive Magistrate must apply their mind while issuing an inquiry order and record the reasoning behind the action. The order must give the person concerned adequate notice of the grounds on which the proceedings have been initiated.

In another relevant legal principle, the court has held that a preliminary order under Section 111 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 130 of the BNSS, is a prerequisite for further proceedings. A final order cannot be passed without giving the person an opportunity to show cause.

Section 141 of the BNSS also provides for action in cases involving a breach of a bond, subject to the prescribed hearing and inquiry process and the recording of grounds establishing the breach.

The CJP legal team has questioned whether the required procedures were followed in Das and Ranka’s case.

REBECCA JOHN CALLS PROCEEDINGS ‘UNCONSCIONABLE’

Senior Advocate Rebecca John criticised the proceedings while speaking to India Today, describing them as “unconscionable”.

“This is unconscionable. A police officer as the SEM has taken a decision. They have weaponised 106/151. They have kept people in jail for over five days, claiming that the sureties are not sound,” John said.

She also referred to a statement by Ratna Singh, saying the SEM had interacted with the sureties who appeared on Monday but again found them unsuitable.

“This is not what the court can do,” she said.

John’s remarks reflect the legal challenge to the handling of the sureties and the continued detention of the two CJP leaders.

LEGAL CHALLENGE EXPECTED

The October 14 order in the case had directed the detention of Das and Ranka for failing to furnish sureties, according to the CJP legal team. Lawyers have argued that the order did not record the inquiry proceedings they say are required under the law.

A similar order rejecting the sureties was passed on Monday, prompting the legal team to prepare a challenge before the appropriate court.

The SEM has now directed the two leaders to produce alternative sureties when the matter comes up on October 21.

The next hearing is expected to determine whether the two leaders can satisfy the magistrate’s requirements for sureties or whether the dispute over their continued detention will be taken to a higher court.

- Ends