New Delhi: Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka remain in Tihar jail, and the reason is narrower than the political noise around them suggests. The proceedings before a special executive magistrate (SEM) concern only the alleged violation of a peace bond the two signed on October 10 — not the criminal cases registered over the October 13 Jantar Mantar protest.
The two signed bonds, promising to keep the 'peace' for a year, after they were taken into preventive detention at Delhi airport ahead of a CJP protest. They were released after furnishing bonds of ₹50,000 each. Three days later, they were detained again after the party's flash protest at Jantar Mantar, with police alleging the conduct breached that undertaking.
Separately, Delhi Police registered two FIRs over the October 13 incident. One, at Connaught Place police station, invokes Sections 332 (house-trespass to commit an offence) and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, against unknown persons. The other, at Parliament Street police station, invokes Section 223A (knowing disobedience of a lawful order) and provisions on assault of public servants. Both have been transferred to the Crime Branch. Das and Ranka have not yet been named as accused in these FIRs.
Any proceedings from the criminal cases will be before a judicial magistrate, not the SEM, an officer appointed by a state government to exercise specific powers on public order. The preventive proceeding, a kalandra, is separate, and here the SEM is weighing only whether the peace bond was broken.
On Monday, the SEM extended the detention of Das and Ranka, calling them 'habitual' in calling for protests in de-notified areas and saying they showed 'no respect for law'. The magistrate also questioned their sureties, citing discrepancies in identity documents and doubts over whether they could ensure compliance. The sureties' identities were kept out of the order.
A surety is a person who takes on a legal obligation to ensure an accused complies with the bond and appears before court. Section 485 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita governs execution of bonds; Section 486 requires a proposed surety to declare how many people they have already stood surety for. A breach by the accused does not by itself make the surety guilty or make the whole bond amount payable. The terms of the bond and the statutory procedure for forfeiture decide that.
The court has to balance security with liberty. Article 21 protects personal liberty, and while preventive powers can be used to avert a real threat to public peace, the Supreme Court has held in Frank Vitus Vs Narcotics Control Bureau (2024) that restrictions on liberty must serve a legitimate purpose and cannot be arbitrary.
Das and Ranka have also moved the Delhi High Court against the extension of their judicial custody to October 21, seeking an early hearing.