The Uttarakhand High Court has strongly criticised Kotdwar resident “Mohammad” Deepak Kumar for seeking police protection and other reliefs while being a suspect in a criminal case. The court stated that the petition by the gym owner is an abuse of process and an attempt to sensationalise the matter.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal made the comments on 19 March while hearing a writ petition filed by Deepak under Article 226 of the Constitution. Deepak, a gym owner, sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him following a complaint by right-wing activists. The FIR, lodged in late January 2026, accuses him of rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The charges stem from an incident on 26 January 2026, when Deepak and another individual confronted members of the Bajrang Dal who were allegedly harassing a 71-year-old Muslim shopkeeper and pressuring him to change his shop’s signage. A video of the confrontation went viral, drawing widespread attention and public support for Deepak, including donations reportedly amounting to around ₹80,000 before he halted collections.
In addition to seeking to quash the FIR, Deepak’s petition included prayers for police protection for himself and his family due to alleged threats, a departmental inquiry against police officers for purported partisan conduct, and directions to register an FIR against individuals for hate speech under Section 196 BNS. He claimed the police had failed to act on his own complaints against the activists, despite identifiable evidence.
During the hearing, the court rebuked Deepak for seeking these additional reliefs. Justice Thapliyal observed that, as a suspected accused under investigation, Deepak could not legitimately seek protection from the same police force tasked with probing the case against him. The judge remarked: “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 it is nothing but in order to put pressure upon the investigating agency.”
The court further described the petition as a “pressure tactic” and an attempt to influence the ongoing investigation. Justice Thapliyal stated: “You are trying to sensationalise the issue by praying for all these forms of relief… When you file a petition, you must understand your own status. You are a suspected accused.” He added: “This is complete abuse of process. The person who is an accused is praying for protection? They [police] are competent. Trust them. You are a suspected accused.”
The judge noted that no harm had come to Deepak since the incident in late January, and highlighted that the police have a greater interest in ensuring his safety to complete the investigation and file a chargesheet. The State counsel informed the court that there was no perceived threat to Deepak based on police assessments.
The bench also criticised the prayer for a departmental inquiry against officers as based on “wild allegations” and questioned the propriety of seeking FIR registration in writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies exist under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court took note of two FIRs (Nos. 25 and 28 of 2026) reportedly registered on Deepak’s complaints, which his counsel claimed he was unaware of, and granted time to verify these.
The court appeared inclined to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs, but adjourned the matter to allow Deepak’s counsel, Advocate Navnish Negi, time to address certain aspects. No final orders were passed in the hearing, and the case has been adjourned to Friday.
