Full Breakdown
Delhi Police Transfers Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) Leaders’ Cases to Crime Branch Amid Custody Extension
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Transfer of FIRs and Extension of Judicial Custody
On October 20, 2026, Delhi Police moved a second First Information Report (FIR) against Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to the Crime Branch’s Inter-State Cell, bringing the unit’s total to two cases. The transfer follows a October 19, 2026 order by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) that extended the leaders’ judicial custody by two days, keeping them in Tihar Jail until October 21 when they will be produced again before the magistrate.
Background & Context
The legal actions stem from an October 13 protest in which Das, Ranka, activist Ajinkya Shinde and eleven other CJP members entered Connaught Place and Jantar Mantar after the latter was denotified as a protest site. Police allege trespass, obstruction of officers, unfurling of the national flag and slogans demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Timeline
- Oct 10 – Das and Ranka detained at IGI Airport; preventive proceedings began.
- Oct 11 – Executed sureties of INR50,000 each and signed peace bonds.
- Oct 12 – Arrested for alleged trespass at Jantar Mantar.
- Oct 13 – Protest; two FIRs registered.
- Oct 14 – Charged under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS; remanded to five-day custody.
- Oct 19 – SEM extended custody by two days, citing breach-of-peace concerns.
- Oct 20 – Second FIR transferred to Crime Branch.
- Oct 21 – Scheduled appearance before the SEM.
Data & Statistics
- 14 individuals detained during the protest.
- 2 FIRs: one at Connaught Place police station (Sections 223A, 332, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and another at Parliament Street police station.
- Surety: INR50,000 each for Das and Ranka; INR5,000 for Shinde, who was released on personal bond.
Official Statements & Responses
Delhi Police said the transfer allows the Crime Branch’s Inter-State Cell to investigate the alleged trespass and obstruction.
CJP legal affairs head Ratna Singh criticised the extension as “vague” and “mental torture.” Founder Abhijeet Dipke claimed the state was “deliberately prolonging” the arrest.
The Election Commission denied any political bias in the electoral-roll revision that CJP was protesting.
Criticism & Opposition
Singh argues the preventive custody lacks factual basis, noting no FIR addresses the alleged breach of peace. Dipke frames the custodial extension as a tactic to suppress dissent.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
CJP counsel says there is no FIR related to the preventive custody, while police records cite two FIRs for trespass and obstruction. Reasons for rejecting sureties vary between a “mismatch in photographs” (advocate Abhik Chimni) and “vague grounds” (party statements). No independent verification of the alleged mismatch is available.
Why It Matters
The case highlights legal ramifications of protests at sites that have recently lost protected status and raises questions about preventive custody under the BNSS. The transfer to the Crime Branch may set precedents for policing denotified protest locations.
What’s Next
The leaders will appear before the SEM on October 21. Their legal team plans to challenge the custody extension in the Delhi High Court, seeking an urgent hearing that will determine whether the extended detention stands pending further judicial review.