Uttarakhand High Court Questions Gym Operator's Plea for Police Protection in Bajrang Dal Case
The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday strongly reprimanded gym operator Deepak Kumar, who gained attention as "Mohammad Deepak" after confronting Bajrang Dal activists allegedly harassing a Muslim shopkeeper. The court questioned how an accused individual could seek police protection while under investigation.
Court Questions Maintainability of Plea
A single bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, while hearing Kumar's petition to quash the FIR, objected to what it termed as unnecessary demands in the application. These included requests for police protection and action against police officers over alleged biased conduct.
The court observed that such pleas appeared to be pressure tactics intended to influence the ongoing investigation and sensationalize the matter. Justice Thapliyal specifically questioned the petitioner's justification for seeking police protection when he himself is a "suspected accused" in the case.
Background of the Case
An FIR has been registered against Deepak Kumar on charges of rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace. This relates to an incident reported on January 26 in Kotdwar, where Kumar allegedly clashed with members of the Bajrang Dal.
The confrontation occurred after Bajrang Dal activists objected to a Muslim shopkeeper, Vakil Ahmed, naming his shop "Baba" in Kotdwar. A video of the incident later went viral on social media, bringing significant attention to the case.
Petitioner's Demands and Court's Response
In his petition, Kumar sought multiple directions from the court:
- Quashing of the FIR registered against him
- Registration of an FIR under Section 196 of the BNS against those allegedly involved in making hate speeches
- Police protection for himself and his family
- A departmental inquiry against police officers accused of partisan conduct
The high court expressed serious reservations about the maintainability of such pleas, observing they appeared to be an attempt to "pressure the investigating agency." The bench added that granting protection at this stage was entirely unwarranted and seemed aimed at influencing the ongoing probe.
Court's Directives and Additional Information
The court on Tuesday directed state authorities to submit status reports on the action taken in all FIRs related to the incident. During the hearing, the investigating officer informed the court that the petitioner was not facing any immediate threat, further undermining Kumar's request for protection.
The court also took a serious view of the petitioner's request for a departmental inquiry against police officers. Justice Thapliyal observed that in the absence of any evidence on record to substantiate the allegations, such a plea during the pendency of the inquiry appeared to be an attempt to influence the proceedings.
Additional Case Details
During the hearing, the court was informed that two FIRs had been registered based on the petitioner's complaint. It was also stated that any related complaint would be placed before the court on Friday.
The high court further sought details regarding funds the petitioner allegedly received from supporters after the incident. According to Deepak Kumar's statement, he received approximately Rs 80,000 in donations following the incident, after which he discontinued all activity on the account.
The court's questioning of Kumar's plea highlights the judicial scrutiny applied to requests that might interfere with ongoing investigations. The case continues to develop as the court awaits further reports from state authorities regarding the multiple FIRs connected to this incident.
