New Delhi: Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are set to move the Delhi High Court seeking their release, challenging the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) court’s order extending their judicial custody in connection with the Jantar Mantar trespassing case.
The move comes a day after the SEM court extended the judicial custody of the two till October 21, observing that their conduct “shows no respect for law” and reflects their “habitualness in calling protest at de-notified areas”.
The two CJP leaders were sent to judicial custody till October 21 by SEM Ritu Raj at Mandir Marg police station after their earlier five-day judicial custody ended on Monday.
In its order, the SEM court said the investigating officer had placed substantial material on record, raising concerns over the likelihood of a breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity.
It also recorded that the two leaders had allegedly breached the bonds furnished by them before the SEM, South-West District, on October 11 and subsequently committed a breach of peace in the present case.
The court further observed that their assurance that they would not repeat the alleged offence did not inspire confidence in view of their past conduct and the material placed on record by the investigating officer.
Das and Ranka, along with party member Ajinkya Shinde, were among 14 people detained on October 13 after they entered Jantar Mantar through private premises and obstructed police personnel from discharging their official duties.
The CJP members were protesting against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and had raised slogans against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
Delhi Police had justified their continued custody, citing repeated violations of law and apprehensions that their release could lead to further violations and instigation of others.
The SEM court had also found the sureties furnished on behalf of the two leaders unfit following an inquiry, citing discrepancies in identity documents and their inability to provide basic details about the persons for whom they stood surety. It directed them to furnish fresh sureties.
(IANS)
