Uttarakhand High Court refused to quash the FIR against gym owner Deepak Kumar and barred him from commenting on social media. The Court said online posts could affect investigation and directed strict compliance with legal procedure.
The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday passed an important order in the case involving gym owner Deepak Kumar, also known as “Mohammad” Deepak, directing him not to make any comments on social media about the ongoing criminal cases linked to the January 26 incident. The Court made it clear that such online statements could interfere with the police investigation, especially since cross-FIRs have already been registered in the matter.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal observed that social media activity by the petitioner could negatively impact the fairness of the investigation. The Court also took serious note of the State’s submission that Kumar was not cooperating with the investigation and was instead actively posting on social media platforms.
The High Court refused to quash the FIR filed against Kumar based on a complaint by right-wing activists. However, it recorded the assurance given by the State Police that the investigation would follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines laid down in the Arnesh Kumar judgment, which provides safeguards in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years.
“The petitioner has a right to challenge FIR, but as pointed out by the State, as all offences carry less than seven year sentence, thus investigating agency is under legal obligation to follow Supreme Court guidelines. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines. Petitioners are also directed to cooperate and not indulge on social media,”
the Court ordered.
The case is related to an incident that took place on January 26, where Kumar confronted a group of right-wing activists who were allegedly harassing an elderly Muslim shopkeeper.
The activists had reportedly objected to the use of the word “Baba” in the shop’s name, claiming it had Hindu religious connotations. During the confrontation, when asked his name, Kumar identified himself as “Mohammad” Deepak, even though his actual name is Deepak Kumar.
Kumar later approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR filed against him and also requested other reliefs. However, the Court directed him and others involved to fully cooperate with the police investigation and avoid any actions that could disturb the process, including sharing messages or videos related to the incident.
“The petitioners and other persons have to cooperate with investigation agency and not create any problem. The petitioners should not indulge by sending messages or videos with regard to the incident. This is essential for fair investigation. If somebody sends messages and videos on social media, this will certainly affect investigation. This Court cannot permit … The petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation and not to indulge unnecessarily on social media platforms so that investigation is not affected. He is citizen of this country and he should abide by the law. Being citizen of India, he has to cooperate with investigation by hoping and trust that investigation will be conducted in fair and transparent manner,”
the Court held.
During the hearing, Kumar’s counsel strongly objected to the restriction on social media use and questioned the legality of such a direction.
“Social media pe restrain kar diya Court (Court has restrained him from social media). Please quote a single message that breaches law and order,”
Kumar’s counsel said.
ALSO READ: Behind the Gown: The Rigorous Process of Senior Advocate Designation
Earlier, the Court had also expressed concern over the growing trend of sensationalising such incidents online and had orally directed Kumar to avoid making public statements.
“When such incidents happen, the police has to first maintain law and order. Don’t (sensationalise). I am stopping you from making any statement on social media. It is my strict direction.”
In response, Kumar’s counsel argued that using social media is not illegal and asked the Court to specify any unlawful act committed by his client.
“Everybody is on social media. What illegal (act) have I done? Have I said anything unconstitutional? It is not a crime.”
The Court, however, remained firm and stated in its order that Kumar’s petition appeared to be an attempt to sensationalise the issue and disrupt the ongoing investigation.
The High Court also rejected Kumar’s request for police protection and a departmental inquiry against certain police officers, who were alleged to have acted in a biased manner.
“The petitioners are under investigation and in such circumstances, he (Kumar) cannot pray for police protection. There is no question of creating a doubt on the investigating agency. He has to hope and trust that his life will be protected. Still, he can approach the competent officer (of the police, if required, for protection),”
the Court said in its order.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the incident and stressed the need for a fair and thorough investigation. It also recorded the State’s assurance that Kumar had already been provided police protection and that there was no immediate threat to his safety.
“No doubt the incident which happened on January 26 and January 31 was really an unfortunate incident and that requires thorough investigation. This Court hopes and trusts that police will conduct fair and transparent probe and will also maintain law and order,”
the Court held.
Further, the Court dismissed Kumar’s request for a departmental inquiry against police officials, calling it unnecessary and harmful to the investigation process.
“Police officers are busy in investigation of FIRs. This relief will affect the ongoing investigation and affect the morale of the investigating agency,”
the Court said.
During arguments, Kumar’s lawyer, Advocate Navnish Negi, submitted that his client had only tried to calm the situation during the incident and was now facing threats. However, the Court responded that it is the duty of the police to ensure his safety and noted the State’s claim that there was no real threat perception.
The Court also criticised Kumar for allegedly using social media to gain attention and influence the situation.
“Who is pressurising you? You are sensationalising the matter on social media? Police has to maintain law and order, aap pravachan de rahe ho social media pe (translation: you are giving lectures on social media),”
the judge remarked.
Kumar’s counsel replied by saying that the video of the incident did not originate from his client and that people from both sides were actively sharing content online.
“The video did not go viral from my phone but from the accused’s phone. Ab donu side k loug active hai. Hamare gym k saamne hua (translation: both sides are active, all this happened in front of my client’s gym)”,
he said.
The judge then questioned why Kumar had approached the Court when his own complaint was already being investigated by the police. The State informed the Court that two FIRs had been registered based on Kumar’s complaint, making his request for registration of FIRs unnecessary. The Court recorded this and disposed of the petition accordingly, while reiterating that the investigation must proceed fairly and without interference.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Newslaundry
