New Delhi, October 2026 : Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka on Wednesday withdrew their petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order extending their judicial custody in connection with the Jantar Mantar trespassing case.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad permitted the withdrawal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. The development came on the day the activists' custody was due to end, with both scheduled to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) court later in the day.
During the hearing, Justice Prasad asked the counsel representing the two activists whether it would be more appropriate to withdraw the petition, await the proceedings before the SEM court at 2 pm and then pursue the appropriate legal remedy, if necessary.
“Would it not be better for you to withdraw this, see what happens at 2 PM and then follow the course of law. It is for you to make a decision,” the High Court observed.
The court further noted that if the activists received relief from the SEM court later in the day, continuing with the High Court proceedings might serve no purpose.
“Suppose things happen today in your favour at 4 PM, all gone,” Justice Prasad remarked.
The Bench then took a brief break to allow advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for Das and Ranka, to consider whether he wished to press the petition or withdraw it. Following the counsel's decision to withdraw the plea, the High Court allowed the request, making it clear that it had not examined the merits of the case.
CJP Had Sought Urgent Hearing
On Tuesday, CJP's legal affairs head, Ratna Singh, said the party had approached the Delhi High Court seeking an urgent hearing in the matter.
“We have moved the Delhi High Court and requested an urgent night hearing. Saurav and Ashutosh should not spend a single minute behind bars. Their liberty must not be curtailed because of political games. Justice must not wait,” she said in a post on X.
The petition challenged the SEM court's decision on Monday to extend the custody of the two activists. In its order, SEM Ritu Raj had observed that their conduct “shows no respect for law” and reflected what the court described as a tendency to organise protests in areas where such demonstrations had been de-notified.
The SEM court said the investigating officer had submitted substantial material raising concerns about the possibility of a breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity.
It also recorded that Das and Ranka had allegedly violated bonds furnished before the SEM, South-West District, on October 11, and subsequently committed a breach of peace in the present case.
The magistrate further observed that their assurance that they would not repeat the alleged offence did not inspire confidence, considering their previous conduct and the material submitted by the investigating officer.
Activists Detained During Protest
Das and Ranka, along with CJP member Ajinkya Shinde, were among 14 people detained on October 13 after they allegedly entered Jantar Mantar through private premises and obstructed police personnel from performing their official duties.
The CJP members were protesting against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and raised slogans against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Delhi Police had defended the continued custody of the activists, citing alleged repeated violations of the law and apprehensions that their release could result in further violations or encourage others to engage in similar conduct.
The SEM court had also rejected the sureties furnished on behalf of Das and Ranka after an inquiry. According to the order, discrepancies were found in identity documents, while the sureties were unable to provide basic details about the individuals for whom they had stood guarantee. The court consequently directed the activists to furnish fresh sureties.
The withdrawal of the High Court petition does not amount to a ruling on the legality of the custody extension. The High Court expressly left the merits of the challenge undecided, while the activists were due to appear before the SEM court for further proceedings.
