Uttarakhand HC accuses ‘Mohammad Deepak’ of ‘sensationalising’ matter by seeking protection

The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday told gym owner Deepak Kumar, who opposed the harassment of an elderly Muslim shopkeeper by alleged Bajrang Dal members, that he was attempting to sensationalise the matter by seeking police protection as part of his petition, Bar and Bench reported.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal made the oral observation while hearing a petition moved by Kumar challenging the case against him, seeking protection and requesting a departmental inquiry against police officers who allegedly failed to act against hate crimes.

On January 26, alleged Bajrang Dal members had arrived at the shop of an elderly Muslim man named Vakeel Ahmed in the Pauri Garhwal district, objecting to him using the word “Baba” in the name of his establishment.

Kumar and another person, Vijay Rawat, objected to the mob’s actions, after which the two Hindu men were asked not to intervene.

The first information report against Kumar and Rawat was filed in late January.

The FIR had been registered based on a complaint by two persons who are members of the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The outfits are a group of Hindutva organisations led by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Subsequently, a group of about 40 persons gathered near Kumar’s gym and shouted slogans against him. The protesters also blocked a national highway.

Kumar had filed a complaint against the persons who had gathered in front of his gym, The Indian Express reported. However, the police had filed the case based on the complaint of an officer against unidentified persons in connection with the protests.

Kumar and Rawat have contended that the FIR filed against them is partisan.

During the hearing on Thursday, the court asked how Kumar can seek protection against threats in the petition essentially filed for quashing the FIR, Bar and Bench reported.

“This is complete abuse of process,” the legal news portal quoted Thapliyal as saying. “The person who is an accused is praying for protection? They [police] are competent. Trust them. You are a suspected accused.”

The judge also questioned him for seeking a departmental inquiry against “erring” police officers.

“What type of prayer is this?” Bar and Bench quoted the court as saying. “Can you pray for this? This is a pressure tactic. I will dismiss with exemplary costs on the petitioner. When you file petition, you should keep in your mind who are you and what is your status in the petition.”

He added that Kumar was trying to “sensationalise the issue” by seeking such forms of relief, Live Law reported.

The gym owner was “burden(ing)” the police by filing the petition, the judge added.

Advocate Navnish Negi, representing Kumar, said that the gym owner was trying to de-escalate the situation when the incident took place in January.

In response, Thapliyal asked the advocate to not focus on “the story” but on the reliefs sought.

The judge also noted that only the request for quashing the FIR can be considered.

Taking note of Kumar’s request for adequate police protection, the judge said that the administration is competent and under legal obligation to maintain law and order, Bar and Bench reported.

The court subsequently listed the matter for Friday.

After the incident, Kumar had subsequently posted a video on Instagram, in which he said: “I am neither a Hindu, neither a Muslim, neither a Sikh, nor a Christian. First and foremost, I am a human being. Because after I die, I have to answer to God and to humanity, not to any religion.”

He added that no one, whether a Hindu or a Muslim, should be targeted for their religion.

The filing of the FIR against Kumar and Rawat sparked criticism from several social media users, who said that Kumar was being targeted merely for speaking up for humanity and opposing the intimidation of a Muslim citizen.