Incited Mob In Prophet Mohammad's Name: Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Bareilly Violence 'Main Conspirator'

Considering the allegations against him, the Court noted that Khan was the "main conspirator" who incited a volatile crowd in the name of Prophet Mohammad, fully aware that they might resort to arson, rioting and attacks on police personnel, while damaging public property.

"Communal harmony forms the bedrock of a democratic nation such as India. Permitting individuals like the applicant to incite divisions on religious grounds for political gain threatens to unravel the social fabric of the country and poses a serious risk to national integrity", a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal remarked.

Briefly put, an FIR was lodged in September 2025, alleging that Khan gave a provocative call during a public meeting in May, persuading members of the Muslim community to assemble at an Inter College to protest against alleged atrocities and the lodging of false cases by the State Government.

Allegedly, a crowd of 200 to 250 people proceeded towards the venue on the basis of the applicant's call, despite the administration invoking Section 163 BNSS to prohibit such gatherings.

When the police tried to stop them, they started making incitement cries of "Sar Tan Se Zuda" as well as raising slogans against the Government. The mob also pelted stones and petrol bombs at the police party and fired upon them, causing injuries to several personnel.

Consequently, public property was also destroyed during the violence. The FIR alleged that this incident disrupted the rhythm of life in Bareilly.

Before the High Court, Khan's counsel argued that he was not named in the FIR and had been implicated despite there being no substantive material indicating that he persuaded or provoked the crowd to assemble or to commit arson or destroy public property.

Additionally, it was argued that the applicant was unaware of any intention by the crowd to cause such destruction.

On the other hand, the State strongly opposed his bail plea by presenting statements from an eyewitness, who testified that Khan had provoked the community to assemble at the venue "at any cost".

The eyewitness further stated that Khan explicitly instructed the crowd that if required, they should "involve in arsoning and destroying the public property," and attack anyone who tried to stop them.

Crucially, the State alleged that just after the incident, he circulated a “thank you speech” video expressing his thanks to the members of the Muslim Community for destroying the public property and for successfully conducting the demonstration.

Considering all the facts and allegations against Khan, Justice Deshwal found him vicariously liable for the mob's actions.

The Court said that, for the offences committed by the crowd, the applicant will also be liable as the main conspirator under various sections of the BNSS.

The applicant cannot be absolved of his liability for such illegal acts, the single judge added.

The High Court also relied on its earlier judgment in Rihan v. State of U.P., reiterating that slogans such as “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” incite armed rebellion and are “a challenge to the authority of law as well as sovereignty and integrity of India”.

In that case, it was held that such slogans incite people to "armed rebellion" and are punishable under Section 152 BNS and are against basic tenets of Islam.

Read more about the Court's observations here: Bareilly Violence | 'Sar Tan Se Juda' Slogan Against India's Sovereignty, Incites Armed Rebellion; No Quranic Basis : Allahabad HC Denies Bail

The bench added that a person's personal liberty cannot prevail over the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Hence, the bench refused him bail while pointing out his 'extensive' criminal history and a 'significant risk' that, if released, he may once again incite a particular community and disturb peace and harmony.