Uttarakhand High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against 'Mohammad' Deepak, Restrains Him From Posting On Social Media

The Uttarakhand High Court today restrained 'Mohammad' Deepak Kumar and others from making any statements or posting videos on social media regarding the 26 January Kotdwar incident and related cases, as it noted that the same might affect the ongoing investigation into the matter. For context, on January 26, 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. Following the incident, several FIRs were lodged, including one against Deepak for the alleged offences of rioting, causing hurt and committing an intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace. Hearing his quashing petition today, Justice Rakesh Thapliyal orally reprimanded him for regularly posting on social platforms about the incident and giving 'sermons'. The bench also took note of the State's submission that Deepak is not cooperating in the investigation. While declining to quash the FIR, the Court disposed of the plea with a direction to the investigating agency to proceed with the probe strictly in accordance with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines. "Aap social media par ja jakar pravachan de rahe ho, matter ko sensationalise kar rahe ho. Aapne information de di police ko, ab police ko apna kaam karne do," Justice Thapliyal orally told Deepak's counsel Advocate Navnish Negi. Advocate Negi, representing the petitioner, argued that his client was present only on January 26 to de-escalate the situation and that the viral video was released by the opposing side, not by his client. He further contended that the petitioner had identified assailants from Haridwar and Dehradun, yet the police had lodged an FIR against Deepak to put pressure on him while not taking any action against the opposite party. When the state repeatedly objected to the social media posts being made by Deepak, Advocate Negi argued, "Everyone is on social media...What illegal act have I done? Have I said anything unconstitutional? Being on social media is not a crime...show me one such post which is illegal”. The Bench, however, was not impressed with his submission and it orally remarked thus: "Don't sensationalise the entire matter. I am now preventing you from making any statements on social media. Don't make any attempt to sensationalise the issue. You are a suspected accused...petitioners have to cooperate without indulging in any activity, like sending messages or videos on social media, which creates problems for the investigating agency and affects the investigation". When Advocate Negi asked if the restraint only applied to them while the opposing side gave interviews, the Court said, "it is for everyone. Nobody is permitted". The Court observed that if a person sends messages and videos on social media while under investigation, it creates severe problems for the investigating agency, which is already under burden. It may be noted that in his plea, petitioner Deepak had sought multiple reliefs, including police protection and the registration of a named FIR against the assailants based on his January 31 complaint. Dealing with his prayers, the Court questioned his counsel as to why the petitioner chose to club these prayers in a quashing petition rather than availing of statutory remedies under Section 175(3) [or 156(3)] of the BNSS. On the other hand, the State Counsel also heavily objected to the petition, arguing that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed material facts. The State informed the Court that two FIRs had already been registered based on the petitioner's complaints prior to the filing of this present petition. When the petitioner's counsel claimed ignorance of the filing of the FIRs on his complaint, the State submitted that the police station is merely 100 meters from the petitioner's gym and therefore, the claim of his ignorance was “completely misconceived and misleading”. Furthermore, contrary to the petitioner's claims of being denied security, the State submitted that the police had proactively provided a constable and stationed a police picket outside his gym from February 3 to March 13, 2026. The State Counsel further highlighted that even though Deepak claimed that the police were doing nothing, actually, his gym was open without restriction, and individuals from various political parties and outside states were constantly visiting him. It was also submitted that while he was busy posting videos on social media, he was not cooperating with the investigation. In view of this, dismissing his relief seeking protection, the bench remarked thus: “The investigating agency has been cautious in providing security to the petitioner, but this does not mean he takes undue advantage of such liberty”. The Court added that a person under investigation cannot seek protection in this manner and must place trust in ...

Uttarakhand High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against 'Mohammad' Deepak, Restrains Him From Posting On Social Media

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags