New Delhi: The ‘Cockroach Janata Party’ (CJP) has become a major topic of discussion lately. CJP members Ashutosh Ranka and Sourav Das remain in jail, and the party is eagerly awaiting their release. The CJP has raised serious questions regarding the government’s role in the delay of their release, alleging that the police administration is deliberately prolonging the “illegal arrest” of Sourav Das and Ashutosh Ranka.
The CJP claims that court proceedings are being delayed and that the guarantees provided by their sureties have been rejected on vague grounds. Meanwhile, the police have registered a case concerning alleged threats received by the magistrate presiding over the matter. Additionally, the CJP leaders have been in judicial custody since their arrest for allegedly entering Jantar Mantar without authorisation. The two leaders had gained entry by climbing over the locked gates. They were taken into custody on October 13 and subsequently remanded to five days of judicial custody on October 14.
What did the CJP founder say?
Abhijit Deepke, the founder of the Cockroach Janata Party, took to the social media platform ‘X’ to make a significant statement. Deepke alleged that the administration appears to be making every improper effort to prolong the “illegal arrest” of Ashu and Sourav and is delaying court proceedings to prevent their release.
Abhijit Deepke asserted, “There is no legal basis for keeping them in jail; therefore, tactics are being employed to cause delays and ensure they remain in custody.” There has been no immediate response from the police regarding these allegations made by the CJP and Deepke.
Meanwhile, Ratna Singh, the CJP’s legal head, stated that the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) and the government prosecutor arrived at around 5:30 PM. She alleged that instead of addressing the release of the two leaders, the proceedings were diverted toward the issue of the alleged threatening messages received by the magistrate.
What did Ratna Singh say about the Delhi Police?
Ratna Singh, a leader from CJP, stated that the public prosecutor, who had failed to appear for four consecutive days, suddenly showed up today and attempted to steer the proceedings toward an alleged threatening message. Meanwhile, the public prosecutor, who had been absent for four days in a row, appeared today and tried to shift the focus of the proceedings to an alleged threatening message. CJP’s lawyers requested the magistrate to identify the sender of the message and initiate action against them.
