Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have accused Delhi Police of “inhuman” treatment during their detention ahead of the party’s planned protest at Jantar Mantar.
The three leaders were released by an Executive Magistrate’s court on Sunday, with a condition that they maintain peace and good behaviour for one year. Each was also required to furnish a Rs 50,000 surety bond.
After their release, the leaders addressed a press conference and levelled several allegations against the authorities, including denial of access to lawyers, being held at different locations and alleged surveillance of their phones. These claims have not been independently established.
CJP leaders allege detention irregularities
Saurav Das alleged that Delhi Police did not allow the detained leaders to speak to their lawyers after they were taken into custody on Saturday.
He further claimed that the three leaders were kept at different locations — saying he was held in RK Puram, while Dipke and Ranka were taken elsewhere.
Das also raised concerns that their phones may have been accessed and alleged that evidence could have been planted. No independent evidence supporting these claims has been established.
The leaders had been detained after arriving in Delhi ahead of the CJP’s proposed demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police had denied permission for the protest, citing law-and-order concerns, public safety and possible inconvenience to residents.
Ranka alleges leaders were ‘kidnapped’
Ranka described the detention as a “kidnapping” and alleged that the CJP leaders were taken into custody after their flight landed in Delhi.
The three were detained aboard their flight after arriving in the national capital on Saturday. Reports said the aircraft was directed to a remote bay at Delhi airport before the leaders were taken into custody.
Ranka also criticised the authorities over the circumstances surrounding Dipke being informed about his grandmother’s death while he was in detention.
CJP alleges ‘inhuman’ handling of bereavement
Ranka alleged that police personnel had cameras and microphones on while Dipke was informed about his grandmother’s death.
He claimed the incident turned a private moment of grief into a spectacle and accused Delhi Police of showing an “inhuman face”.
According to information cited in the reports, Dipke’s grandmother had died after a prolonged illness in Santuk Pimpri village in Maharashtra’s Hingoli district.
Delhi Police, however, gave a different account of the episode. Police sources said Dipke was informed about the death and funeral timings with due sensitivity and that he was offered assistance to travel for the last rites.
CJP alleges ‘open Emergency’ in Delhi
The allegations came amid a wider confrontation between the CJP and authorities over the planned Jantar Mantar protest.
Das accused the government of creating what he described as an “open Emergency” in Delhi, drawing parallels with the 1975 Emergency. He alleged that between 30,000 and 40,000 security personnel had been deployed across the capital.
He also alleged that restrictions on Metro services, trains and markets were intended to inconvenience ordinary citizens and turn public sentiment against the protest movement.
The scale of the security deployment and the number of people detained have been reported differently by various sources as the situation developed.
Protest was denied permission
The CJP had planned a demonstration at Jantar Mantar demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Delhi Police denied permission for the protest, citing security and public-order concerns. The authorities subsequently mounted extensive security arrangements across the capital, while several protesters and political leaders were detained.
The CJP leaders have vowed to continue their agitation.
The allegations made by the CJP leaders regarding police conduct, phone access and evidence-planting remain claims and have not been independently established. The police have maintained that the preventive action was taken amid security and law-and-order concerns.
