HC declines to quash case against ‘Mohammad’ Deepak, restrains him from posting on social media

The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday restrained gym owner Deepak Kumar, who opposed the harassment of an elderly Muslim shopkeeper by alleged Bajrang Dal members, from commenting on social media about the cases filed against him, Bar and Bench reported.

Declining to quash the first information report against Kumar on charges of rioting and intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, Justice Rakesh Thapliyal said that the gym owner might affect the investigation by making statements or posting videos on social media, Live Law reported. The judge also criticised him for regularly posting on social media platforms about the incident and giving “sermons”.

Kumar, in his petition, had also sought police protection and requested a departmental inquiry against police officers who allegedly failed to act against hate crimes. However, the court had on Thursday accused him of “sensationalising” the matter, and questioned how he could seek protection while being accused in a police case.

The incident took place on January 26 when alleged Bajrang Dal members had come to 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 FIR against Kumar and Rawat was filed in late January based on a complaint by two persons who are members of the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The FIR invoked charges of rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal members, in their complaint, claimed that Kumar and Rawat stole their watches and money, and hurled casteist abuses at them.

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.

On Friday, the court took note of the claim made by the state government that Kumar had not been cooperating with the investigation and had instead been “busy” on social media, Bar and Bench reported.

Thapliyal directed Kumar to cooperate with the investigation and not “indulge unnecessarily on social media platforms so that investigation is not affected”.

Refusing to allow Kumar’s petition, it instead recorded the state police’s assurance that it will follow the guidelines on safeguards to be adhered to while investigating an offence that carries a prison term of up to seven years. It directed the police to go ahead with the investigation.

Earlier during the hearing on Friday, the court noted that when such incidents happen, the police have to first maintain law and order. The judge once again asked Kumar not to sensationalise the matter, adding that he was stopping the gym owner from making any statement on social media.

However, Kumar’s counsel told the court that speaking on social media is not a crime, and asked whether his client had said anything unconstitutional, according to Bar and Bench.

The court on Friday also dismissed Kumar’s request for protection. It also described Kumar’s request for a departmental inquiry against the police officers as “wholly unwarranted” at this stage of the case.

The incident

In a video of the January 26 incident that was later widely shared on social media, Kumar is seen asking the group why other shops are allowed to use the word “Baba” but Ahmed’s shop is not. He is also heard saying that the shop is more than 30 years old and asking whether its name should now be changed.

When asked his name, Kumar replied, “My name is Mohammad Deepak.”

“I intended to convey that I was an Indian and that everyone is equal before the law,” Kumar later explained.

Kumar subsequently posted a video on social media, 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.