Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have been summoned by the Delhi Police to appear for questioning on Thursday in connection with the Jantar Mantar protest case.

The CJP members have been asked to appear before the Delhi Police Crime Branch office in Rajouri Garden at noon.

Das and Ranka had been summoned by the Delhi Police earlier in October as well. However, they skipped the summons and later sought more time to appear before the Crime Branch for questioning.

The protest cases against the CJP leaders were transferred to the Crime Branch in October. The cases are in connection with the incident on October 13, when Das, Ranka and Ajinkya Shinde, along with 11 others, trespassed into Jantar Mantar, which has been de-notified as the designated protesting site.

All were detained by the Delhi Police. While Shinde was released on bail bond, Das and Ranka remained in judicial custody for a week.

The CJP members were protesting against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and raised slogans against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

On October 21, Das and Ranka were released from Tihar Jail following a week in judicial custody, after submitting written undertakings before a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), assuring that they would maintain peace and refrain from calling for protests at Jantar Mantar until the site is de-notified in accordance with law.

SEM Ritu Raj directed the release of the two activists after they furnished personal bonds and surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each until the conclusion of the inquiry in connection with the Jantar Mantar trespassing case.

In their written undertakings, both activists promised not to commit any breach of peace and expressed full faith in the judiciary and all its instruments, including the SEM court.

The SEM court observed that the immediate measures required under Section 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to prevent a breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity could be adequately secured through the execution of bonds, supported by the written undertakings.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 24-hour constitutional deadline for producing an arrested person before a Magistrate begins from the moment of actual detention, when the person’s liberty is curtailed, and not from the time of formal arrest recorded by the police.

The judgment came on appeals filed by four persons challenging a Tripura High Court decision denying them bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar held that the period of 24 hours prescribed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution must be calculated from the date and time when a person is actually detained, and not from the time when the investigating agency formally records the arrest.

Article 22(2) mandates that every person arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court. It further prohibits detention beyond this period without the authority of a Magistrate.

Rejecting the distinction between detention and formal arrest for computing the constitutional deadline, the Justice Bhuyan-led Bench said that treating the period of 24 hours as commencing only after the completion of search and seizure and from the time of arrest formally recorded by the arresting authority was “not only unsustainable in law but is entirely unconstitutional”.

The Supreme Court further clarified that if a person’s detention continues beyond 24 hours without production before a Magistrate, the person must be released forthwith. It said that while computing the period, no time can be excluded except that which is necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court.

The Justice Bhuyan-led Bench also stressed that compliance with the 24-hour constitutional limit alone would not automatically justify detention, as the investigating agency must ensure that the period of custody remains reasonable under Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Section 58 of the BNSS provides that a police officer cannot detain a person arrested without a warrant for longer than is reasonable under the circumstances of the case, and, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate, such detention cannot exceed 24 hours, excluding the necessary journey time.

The apex court said that a Magistrate, at the time of production of an accused, is duty-bound to record the actual date and time when the person’s liberty was curtailed and independently examine whether the constitutional deadline has been complied with.

It further held that even where the detention is within the 24-hour period, the Magistrate must examine whether the duration of custody was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If the Magistrate finds that the detention has exceeded a reasonable period, he may decline to authorise further remand.

Setting aside the Tripura High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Special Court.

In a chilling incident, a 12-year-old girl was brutally murdered in Jharkhand’s Godda district after her throat was slit and her head severed, officials said on Thursday.

A wave of shock swept through the area on Thursday morning after her headless body was discovered in a field in Dahua village, under the jurisdiction of the Lalamatia police station. As information about the incident spread, a crowd of villagers gathered at the scene.

Upon receiving the information, the police arrived and recovered the girl’s torso, though her severed head has yet to be found, officials said.

According to villagers, the crime was committed late Wednesday night. Like any other night, the girl had been sleeping at home with her parents. However, when the family woke up in the morning and found her missing from her bed, they began searching for her.

Shortly thereafter, they received word that her body had been discovered in a field in the village. The family remains baffled as to when, how, or under what suspicious circumstances the girl left, or was taken from, the house in the middle of the night.

Recognising the gravity of the situation, the Lalamatia police arrived promptly with a team. They immediately cordoned off the area and began collecting forensic evidence. The gruesome nature of the murder has sparked concern among the villagers.

Locals have suggested that the brutal killing might be linked to occult practices, human sacrifice, or some form of superstition.

The police, however, state that the actual motive behind the murder remains unclear. They are conducting a thorough investigation, exploring all possible angles, including technical analysis, forensic examination, and potential personal or family vendettas.

Following this harrowing incident, an atmosphere of intense panic, fear, and outrage prevails in Dahua village and the entire surrounding area.

The enraged villagers have demanded that the police administration arrest those involved in this crime as soon as possible.

Investigation is underway, and further details are awaited.