Legal Proceedings Questioned After Extended Custody of CJP Leaders

New Delhi, October 19 (Daily Kiran) : Legal representatives and officials from the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) have raised serious concerns regarding recent court proceedings following the extension of judicial custody for leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. After two additional days in custody, their lawyers voiced criticism of the legal process, alleging procedural irregularities.

Advocate Abhik Chimni, who represents Das and Ranka, noted that by the time they arrived in court, the initial five-day custody period had already elapsed. During the previous hearing, the court deemed the documents submitted by the bailors as insufficiently clear or valid. Consequently, the defense team returned with new documents for consideration.

Advocate Abhisht Hel commented on the situation, stating that both leaders had initially been remanded to judicial custody based on the same facts. With the completion of the five-day period, the case was re-evaluated, effectively extending the custody to six days.

CJP’s Legal Affairs Head, Ratna Singh, expressed her outrage at the court’s actions, describing the proceedings as akin to a farce. She emphasized that there had been no meaningful discussion of legal principles in the courtroom. Singh questioned whether the term “court” was even appropriate in this context, citing a lack of legal discourse. She called the proceedings a grave concern for the justice system and demanded a thorough investigation into the matter, urging other courts to pay attention to the infringement on personal freedoms.

CJP spokesperson Mehr Pasricha also criticized the decision to extend custody, labeling the actions as deplorable. She questioned whether this was the standard for justice in courts, stating that she was aware of the facts surrounding the case and wondered what crime the two young leaders had committed.

Advocate Pushp Sharma, representing the defendants, echoed the criticism of the court’s proceedings. He accused the court of prioritizing political correctness over legal integrity, describing the situation as shocking and absurd from a legal and justice perspective.