How Can An Accused Seek Police Protection?: Uttarakhand High Court To 'Mohammad' Deepak; Says He Is Sensationalizing Matter

A bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal termed the extraneous prayers in the petition as 'pressure tactics' aimed at influencing the ongoing investigation and attempting to 'sensationalize the entire issue'.

The bench also sought to know the rationale behind seeking police protection when the petitioner himself is a 'suspected accused'.

For context, 'Mohammad' Deepak alias Deepak Kumar faces an FIR for the alleged offences of rioting, causing hurt and committing an intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace.

The charges relate to a January 26 incident where Deepak confronted Bajrang Dal members who were allegedly objecting to a Muslim shopkeeper using the word 'Baba' in his shop's name. A video of the incident had gone viral online.

While the primary relief in his plea sought the quashing of the FIR against him, Deepak's plea included the following 3 other prayers to which the court took strong objections:

1. Directions to register an FIR against the 'perpetrators' of hate speech under Section 196 of BNS.
2. Adequate police protection for himself and his family.
3. Departmental inquiry against erring police officers for their alleged 'partisan' conduct.

Dictating the order in the open court, Justice Thapliyal categorically questioned the maintainability of these prayers in a plea filed invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Regarding the prayer to register an FIR against the 'perpetrators' of hate speech, the Court noted that the petitioner had the statutory remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 156(3) of the CrPC).

"Instead of availing that remedy, filing a petition for registration is wholly unwarranted, particularly when the person who is praying for the FIR is himself an accused in an FIR," the Court observed, calling it a practice to put "pressure upon the investigating agency".

Regarding the prayer for police protection, the State counsel informed the Court that she has received telephonic instructions from the Investigating Officer that there was "no threat perception" to the petitioner.

Taking this submission on record, the bench questioned the logic behind seeking police protection when the petitioner himself is a suspected accused. The single judge observed thus:

"The status of the petitioner as on date is as a suspected accused...How can a suspected accused who is under investigation pray for police protection? Such a relief at this juncture...is wholly unwarranted and it appears Relief 3 is nothing but in order to put pressure upon the investigating agency".

However, Advocate Navnish Negi, representing Deepak, continued to press for this relief as he argued that his client was indeed facing continuous threats and a mob had gathered outside his house and gym, creating a constant apprehension for his life.

Finding no substance in his arguments, Justice Thapliyal orally remarked that such fears were unfounded, given the timeline of events.

"The first incident was on January 26, the second on January 31. February has passed, half of March is over. Kisi ne haath lagaya nahi (No one has laid a hand on you)" the judge asked Negi.

Justice Thapliyal also orally remarked that police was comptent to take care of the security concerns of the petitioner:

"Aapse zyada unko (police) chinta hai aapke safety ki. Kyun? Kyunki unko FIR ki jaanch karke ek chargesheet deni hai. Agar aap hi ke saath kuch ho gaya to chargesheet kaise aayi? (They are more worried about your safety than you are. Why? Because they have to investigate the FIR and file a chargesheet. If something happens to you, how will the chargesheet be filed?)."

The Court also took “serious note” of the prayer seeking a departmental inquiry against 'erring' police officials.

Noting the absence of any material on record to substantiate "wild allegations", the bench observed that making such prayers while investigations are pending is "nothing but making an attempt to influence all pending investigations".

During the proceedings, the State Counsel submitted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts. It was brought to the Court's attention that two FIRs had already been registered based on Deepak's complaints: FIR No. 25 of 2026 and FIR No. 28 of 2026.

Advocate Negi, representing Deepak, claimed his client was completely unaware of these FIRs. The Court thus granted him until tomorrow to obtain the FIRs in question and verify facts.

However, before dictating today's order, Justice Thapliyal engaged in a sharp exchange with Advocate Negi regarding the drafting of the petition.

"When you file a petition, you must understand your own status. You are a suspected accused, and then you seek police protection...You are trying to sensitise (sensationalize) the issue by praying for all these forms of relief. I will dismiss it. The lesson should go", the judge orally remarked.

During the hearing, the bench also inquired about the funds the petitioner had allegedly received from supporters following the incident.

"Abhi tak kitne paise aaye account mein?" (How much money has come into the account so far?), Justice Thapliyal asked.

Adv Negi submitted that approximately ₹80,000 had been received before they stopped the account activity. "Jaise hi ek bada amount aaya, hume bank ne kaha ki stop kardo. I have stopped. I posted on social media ki mere account mein paise na dale jayen," Negi explained.

During the course of the hearing, Adv Negi also strongly contested the rioting charges (Section 191 BNS) invoked against him as he argued that rioting requires an assembly of five or more people, whereas video evidence showed only two individuals.

"Mera poora case hai ki hume S. 191 BNS ke andar book kar rahe hain jabki hum sirf do log the. Aur hum to matter ko de-escalate karne ki koshish kar rahe the ki bhai January 26 ko aisi ghatnayen na hon. Lekin hume book kar liya," (My entire case is that they are booking us under Section 191 BNS whereas we were only two people. And we were trying to de-escalate the matter so that such incidents do not happen on January 26. But we were booked), Adv Negi argued.

The bench, however, refused to view the case in isolation, as Justice Thapliyal remarked thus:

"Kuch cases aise hote hain... hume yahan baith kar keval ek aapka case nahin dekhna. iska effect society mein kya hoga...State police ke paas bhi keval ek case nahin hai, inke paas tamam cases hote hain, they are so busy", the judge noted.