E-Paper
Peace bonds, sureties and preventive custody: The law under which CJP's Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are behind bars
CJP's Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are being held over an alleged breach of their peace bond, a process separate from the Jantar Mantar FIRs.
Prefer HTon Google
The continued detention of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka in Tihar jail has raised questions about the legal consequences of breaching a peace bond, the powers of executive magistrates and the constitutional limits on preventive detention.
The proceedings before the special executive magistrate (SEM) concern only the alleged violation of a peace bond the two leaders signed on October 10, and not the criminal cases registered over the October 13 Jantar Mantar incident.
The two leaders signed the bonds, undertaking to maintain peace for one 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 following the party's protest at Jantar Mantar, with the police alleging that their conduct breached the earlier undertaking. They were initially remanded to five days of judicial custody.
Separately, Delhi Police registered two first information reports (FIRs) in connection with the October 13 incident. One was lodged at Connaught Place police station under Sections 332 (house-trespass to commit an offence) and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the criminal code that replaced the Indian Penal Code, against unknown persons. The other was lodged at the Parliament Street police station under Section 223(a) (knowing disobedience of a lawful order issued by a public servant) and other provisions relating to assault on public servants. The trespass case has since been transferred to the crime branch.
Das and Ranka have not yet been named as accused in these FIRs. Any proceedings arising from those criminal cases will be before a judicial magistrate, not the SEM. The preventive proceeding, known as a kalandra, is a separate process concerned with whether the leaders violated their peace bonds.
Also read: CJP’s history of mob violence can’t be ignored, cops tell Supreme Court
What do the two FIRs concern?
According to the Connaught Place FIR, Das, Ranka, Anjinkya Shinde and 11 other CJP members reached Jantar Mantar during the morning of October 13, allegedly entering the area "by trespassing through a private person". Police said personnel deployed at the site intervened to stop them, but the protesters allegedly obstructed the officers in the discharge of their official duties.
The alleged trespass and obstruction form the basis of the criminal investigation, distinct from the question of whether Das and Ranka violated their earlier undertaking to maintain peace.
The transfer of the trespass case to the crime branch concerns the investigation into that incident, and the SEM proceedings continue independently of it.
An FIR does not establish guilt, and the alleged offences in those cases cannot automatically be treated as proven breaches of the peace bond. The two processes have different purposes and operate under different legal frameworks.
What is a peace bond, what happens if it is breached?
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), empowers executive magistrates to initiate preventive proceedings when information suggests that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity.
Section 126 allows an executive magistrate to require a person to show cause why they should not execute a bond to keep the peace. Such a bond may be required for a period of up to one year. The provision is preventive. Its objective is to avert an anticipated breach of peace, while punishment for an offence follows only a conviction at trial.
The statutory process includes an inquiry into the information received. Section 135 governs the inquiry and provides for an interim direction to furnish security in specified circumstances where immediate measures are necessary to prevent a breach of peace or protect public safety. The magistrate must record the reasons for such an interim direction in writing.
The consequences of violating a bond depend on the stage of the proceedings and the provision under which it was executed.
Section 141(1)(b) deals with a breach of a peace bond executed pursuant to an order under Section 136, the provision under which a magistrate, after the inquiry, orders a person to give security. Where the statutory requirements are met, a magistrate may order the person to be arrested and detained until the bond period expires, recording the grounds for the decision.
In the present case, the SEM proceedings concern the allegation that Das and Ranka breached their October 10 undertaking through their conduct at Jantar Mantar. The legal question is whether the alleged breach has been established in accordance with the applicable statutory procedure and whether the custody ordered is authorised by the relevant provision.
Section 170 of the BNSS, meanwhile, gives the police a separate power to arrest without a warrant when an officer knows of a design to commit a cognisable offence and considers that the offence cannot otherwise be prevented. Detention under this power ordinarily cannot exceed 24 hours unless further custody is authorised under another applicable provision of law. Section 170, by itself, is not a basis for indefinite detention.
Why has the SEM questioned the sureties?
A surety is a person who undertakes a legal obligation to secure an accused person's compliance with the conditions of a bond and, where required, their appearance before the court. A personal bond is an undertaking given by the accused; a surety bond is given by a third party.
Section 485 of the BNSS governs the execution of bonds by accused persons and their sureties, while Section 486 requires a proposed surety to declare the number of persons for whom they have already stood surety. These requirements help courts assess whether the proposed security is genuine and whether the surety has the financial capacity to undertake the obligation.
On Monday, the SEM extended the detention of Das and Ranka. In a two-page order, the magistrate said the two had "deliberately breached" their bonds and that their conduct "shows no respect for law and their habitualness in calling protest at de-notified areas". Jantar Mantar had recently been de-notified as a designated protest site. The order gave the two leaders two days to file written submissions.
Das and Ranka have since challenged the SEM order in the Delhi high court.
The magistrate also questioned the people who had stood surety for them, citing discrepancies in their identity documents and doubts about their ability to ensure compliance.
Such scrutiny is legitimate where the authenticity or sufficiency of a surety is in question. But discrepancies must be assessed on their facts, since they do not automatically establish fraud or criminal liability.
In Union of India vs Chidiebere Kingsley Nawchara (2026), the Supreme Court highlighted the risks posed by fictitious sureties and weaknesses in verification mechanisms. Justice Sanjay Karol (since retired) held that sureties play an important role in ensuring an accused person remains available to investigative and judicial authorities. The judgment underscores the need for genuine security, without making every irregularity conclusive proof of wrongdoing.
Also read: SC seeks report on pellet gun use, police excesses during July protest at Jantar Mantar in 2 weeks
Can the surety be made to pay?
Section 484 of the BNSS requires the amount of a bond to be appropriate to its purpose and not excessive. Section 491 lays down the procedure for forfeiture. The court must record the grounds, call upon the person bound by the bond to pay the penalty or show cause, and consider the explanation offered.
The court may remit part or all of the penalty where legally justified. If sufficient cause is not shown and the amount remains unpaid, it may be recovered through the prescribed process, including attachment and sale of movable property or recovery through the Collector as arrears of land revenue.
A breach by the accused does not automatically make the surety guilty of an offence or render the entire bond amount immediately payable. The terms of the bond and the statutory procedure governing forfeiture remain decisive.
What do courts say about liberty and proportionality?
In Beneth Chukuwuddi vs State of NCT of Delhi (2026), the Delhi high court examined the difficulties faced by an undertrial prisoner who could not arrange a local surety despite being granted bail. The court stressed the need to balance the purpose of securing an accused person's presence with the practical consequences of bail conditions.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Frank Vitus vs Narcotics Control Bureau (2024) also underscores that restrictions on liberty must serve a legitimate purpose and cannot be arbitrary or disproportionate. Although that case concerned bail conditions, its reasoning is relevant to the broader principle that restrictions must remain connected to their lawful objective.
Article 21 of the Constitution protects personal liberty. Preventive powers can be exercised to avert a genuine threat to public peace, but the existence of such powers does not dispense with statutory safeguards or the need to justify continued detention.
The allegations concerning the October 13 protest, including the alleged trespass and obstruction, will be examined through the separate criminal process if the investigation results in proceedings against identified accused persons. The SEM's task in the present case is narrower: to determine the consequences, under the applicable law, of the alleged breach of the October 10 peace bond.
Preventing a breach of peace is a legitimate function of the law, but preventive proceedings cannot be conflated with a criminal trial, and allegations in separate FIRs cannot be treated as established guilt.
