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

The Uttarakhand High Court today orally rebuked Kotdwar-based gym owner 'Mohammad Deepak' over extraneous prayers in his FIR quashing petition, wherein he inter alia sought police protection and action against erring police officials for their 'partisan' approach. 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: Directions to register an FIR against the 'perpetrators' of hate speech under Section 196 of BNS. Adequate police protection for himself and his family. 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...

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

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags