Cockroach Janata Party leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das were granted bail by the court on Wednesday.
Both were detained on charges of violating prohibitory orders at Jantar Mantar. Later he was sent to Tihar jail for five days.
After five days, he was produced before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) but was not granted bail.
Both of them had approached the Delhi High Court against this decision. But Delhi High Court had asked him to go back to SEM Court for bail.
On Wednesday, SEM accepted his bond and ordered his release.
Earlier, both the leaders had withdrawn the petition challenging their judicial custody from the High Court.
During the hearing on this petition filed in the Delhi High Court, the court had suggested the lawyers of Ranka and Das to wait for the hearing before the Special Executive Magistrate on Wednesday.
If they are kept in judicial custody even after this, they can appeal to the Sessions Court instead of filing a writ petition directly in the High Court.
After this his lawyers accepted the suggestion of the court and withdrew their petition.
In appeal, lawyers can give arguments based on the facts of the case, whereas in writ petition it is mainly seen whether the decision making process was fair or not.
The court did not give any opinion on the merits of the case.
Earlier, the judicial custody of Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das was extended for two days.
The court of Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) Ritu Raj had given this order on October 19.
The court had mainly given two reasons behind increasing the custody. Firstly, past conduct, disregard for law and serious threat of breach of peace. Secondly, the sureties offered on their behalf were found to be ineligible.
Lawyers of Ranka and Das told BBC News Hindi that this order of the SEM Court has been challenged in the Delhi High Court. CJP's legal head Ratna Singh has posted on 'X' saying that they will demand an early hearing in the case.
CJP founder Abhijeet Deepke was released from SEM court on Saturday. Deepke was detained from where he was staying, just before the 'Lehra Do Tiranga' protest at Connaught Place on October 16.
October 10 arrest and legal complications of 'Peace Bond'
Actually this whole matter started on 10th October. According to Delhi Police, CJP leaders had called for the protest through social media without police permission.
The police's argument was that the law and order situation could deteriorate due to the demonstration at Jantar Mantar. On this basis, the police took Deepke, Ranka and Das into custody from Delhi Airport on October 10.
The next day, on October 11, he was produced in the SEM court. In the court, all three gave a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and a surety bond under Section 136 of the Indian Civil Security Code (BNSS) promising to maintain peace for a year, on the basis of which they were released.
In legal language it is called 'Peace Bond'. It is a written promise in which a person agrees that he will maintain peace in an area for a certain period of time and will not do anything that may disturb law and order.
Alleged breach of bond and police claims
Police claim that immediately after their release, these leaders again started calling for protests at Jantar Mantar.
Sub-Inspector (SI) Mohit Bhati, the complainant in the case, told the SEM court that on the morning of October 13, Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das jumped from inside the JDU office premises and reached Jantar Mantar and started creating ruckus by raising slogans.
In the first remand order passed by SEM Mahesh Kumar Meena on October 14, the police and the court made very strict comments.
The order said Ranka and Das were "obstinate and aggressive" and "showed no remorse".
The order also said that the past conduct of the two accused shows that they "disobeyed the lawful instructions of the authorities" and were adamant on inciting the general public to join the illegal protests.
Based on these comments and the fear of disturbing the peace, the court issued a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS and sent him to judicial custody for five days.
What does the latest order to extend custody say?
When he was produced again on October 19, SEM Ritu Raj's court extended his custody by two more days. In its order, the court said that the two had "deliberately violated the bond and disturbed the peace".
The court commented strongly that the behavior of the accused showed that "they have no respect for the law."
The court also said that both of them have repeatedly shown a tendency to do so by calling for demonstrations in areas where restrictions have been lifted. The court believed that in view of his past actions, his assurance of maintaining peace could not be trusted.
Additionally, the investigating officer told the court that he had received an "unknown WhatsApp message" which showed that the threat of protests at Jantar Mantar still remained.
Another major reason for extending the custody was the rejection of the new sureties presented by the defense.
The order clarified that there was a clear mismatch between the photographs of the bond and Aadhaar card of a surety. Another surety "failed to provide even basic information" such as the name and address of Das's parents. The court said that these sureties have no control over the accused.
Legal expert's opinion: 'This is a matter of bond, not bail'
Supreme Court lawyer Nipun Saxena calls this entire legal process a part of preventive powers under Chapter 9 of BNSS.
He told the BBC, "Under Sections 126 to 143 of the BNSS, the Executive Magistrate has the power to impose a bond on a person who is suspected of disturbing public peace. When a person violates this peace bond, the magistrate starts investigation under section 130."
On the issue of rejection of sureties, he has said that Section 140 of BNSS empowers the Magistrate to check whether the surety is eligible or not.
According to Saxena, “A surety is a person who is responsible for producing the accused. If the surety is unable to provide basic information about the accused, the magistrate can dismiss him."
Saxena also clarified that theoretically a person can be detained under these preventive sections for a maximum of six months.
However, citing old decisions of the Supreme Court, he said that mere failure to furnish surety should not be made the basis for prolonged detention.
Defense legal arguments
CJP leaders' lawyer Abhisht Hela has raised the issue of conflict of interest in this entire legal process.
Hela said, “Police officers are the only complainants. It is he who is detaining [Rankaa and Das] and then producing them before the SEM court, who is himself an ACP rank police officer."
On the police's claim of violating the peace bond, Hela gave legal arguments, "Exercising one's fundamental rights is not a violation of the peace bond. A peace bond is considered violated when there is a threat to the public peace, but there was no general public present at the scene.
On Deepke being released and Das-Rankaa's custody continuing despite being associated with the same organisation, Saxena said that under BNSS, the magistrate has the discretion to make a person furnish a personal bond or demand surety.
