Bareilly Namaz Row | State Can Act If Peace Threatened: Allahabad High Court Holds Man To Undertaking Against Large Gatherings

The Court has also asked the State authorities to take action if public peace and tranquillity are threatened due to such large gatherings. The HC also DISCHARGED the contempt notice issued to the Bareilly District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad days after another bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan had issued a contempt notice against top Barielly district officials and later, provided him with 24/7 security.

The new bench, which dealt with the matter after the roster of benches was changed, has, however, withdrawn the security granted to the one Haseen Khan at the petitioner's counsel's request.

For context, the matter was finally disposed of on March 25 when the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police of Bareilly appeared before the Court in compliance with an earlier order and filed personal affidavits.

Representing the State, Additional Advocate General Sri Anoop Trivedi submitted that under the garb of protection, the petitioner was misusing the same and at least 52-62 persons are offering Namaz at the property of the petitioner everyday.

To substantiate this claim, the State placed on record photographs of the petitioner's property enclosed with the affidavits.

The AAG added that in case such practice is allowed to be continued, that would be detrimental to the peace and tranquillity of the area, and under the garb of personal protection, this cannot be permitted.

He submitted that if there is any possibility of disturbance of law and order, the State Authorities have no option but to take action

Taking into account these submissions, the bench took on record the undertaking of the counsel for the petitioner that he will not collect a large number of persons for offering Namaz over the property which is the subject matter of the present petition.

Accepting this stance, the division bench observed thus:

"we hope and trust that the petitioner shall abide by the undertaking given by him. In case the petitioner violates the aforesaid undertaking and collects in large number to offer Namaz at the property which is subject matter in the present writ petition, and if there is threat to peace and tranquility in the area, the respondents authorities are at liberty to act in accordance with law"

The Court also ordered the State authorities to immediately withdraw a police challan dated January 16, 2026, issued against the petitioner and other persons.

The Court also noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that Haseen Khan, to whom the security was initially provided by an earlier order of the Court, no longer required any security.

Consequently, the Court directed the State authorities to withdraw the security provided to the petitioner. With this, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.