Allahabad High Court closed contempt proceedings against Bareilly officials over alleged interference with namaz at a private residence. The Court earlier ruled that offering prayers on private property in Uttar Pradesh requires no prior permission.
PRAYAGRAJ: A bench of the Allahabad High Court has closed contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Bareilly.
The contempt action arose from allegations that these officials had prevented certain individuals from offering namaz at a private residence in Mohammad Ganj village.
In January, a Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan had held that holding a religious prayer meeting on private property in Uttar Pradesh does not require prior permission.
Subsequently, a Mohammad Ganj resident claimed the authorities had not followed that ruling and sought action against them for disrupting prayers at his home. The Bench led by Justice Sreedharan then summoned the Bareilly District Magistrate and SSP and ordered protection for the homeowner, Haseen Khan.
After a roster change, the matter came before a different bench Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad. On March 25, the Court accepted the explanations offered by the officers and discharged them from the contempt proceedings.
The Court also noted the State’s submission that,
“under the garb of protection provided by the Court, the petitioner was gathering at least 52-62 persons for namaz at the property. The State also said that such practice could prove detrimental to the peace and tranquility of the area.”
ALSO READ: Rajasthan High Court Orders Withholding Salaries of IAS Officers Over Contempt Case
Thereafter, the petitioner’s counsel made the following statement:
“will not collect a large number of persons for offering Namaz over the property which is subject matter of present petition.”
With that assurance, the Court disposed of the petition, expressing the hope that the undertaking will be honored and granting the State leave to take action if it is breached.
The Bench said,
“In case the petitioner violates the aforesaid undertaking and collects in large number to offer Namaz at the property which is subject matter in the present writ petition, and if there is threat to peace and tranquility in the area, the respondents authorities are at liberty to act in accordance with law,”
The petitioner also informed the Court that he does not require security, and the bench directed the State to withdraw the protection previously provided to him.
The Court further ordered the State to drop its action against the petitioner and others:
“We further direct the State Authorities to immediately withdraw the challan issued against the petitioner and other persons.”
Advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam represented the petitioner. Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, Additional Government Advocate Sameer Shankar, and Standing Counsel Anubhav Shukla appeared for the State.
Case Title: Tarik Khan v State of UP & 2 Others.