Supreme Court Stays FIR Against Uttarakhand Gym Owner 'Mohammed' Deepak Over Bajrang Dal Row

(MENAFN- Live Mint) The Supreme Court on 31 August stayed proceedings arising from an FIR against Dehradun gym owner 'Mohammed' Deepak Kumar with regard to a confrontation involving Bajrang Dal members and a Muslim shopkeeper, legal news website LiveLaw reported.

The Court also stayed the operation of the High Court order restraining Deepak from making social media posts about the incident and the case.

Also Read | 'Right to know' exact percentage of ethanol in petrol? Here's what SC said

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order while issuing notice to the respondents in Deepak's petition challenging the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR.

What was the row with Bajrang Dal?

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Deepak, argued that his client had intervened after Bajrang Dal members objected to a Muslim shopkeeper using the word“Baba” in his shop's name. When the mob confronted Deepak asking his name, he replied, "Mohammed Deepak." The video of the incident, which took place on Republic Day, had gone viral on social media.

Singhvi said Deepak had gone to assist the shopkeeper after the incident. He argued that Deepak had himself lodged complaints regarding the incident, but that no action had been taken on them, while an FIR was registered against him.

“How can a good samaritan be subjected to this kind of a complaint?” Singhvi told the court.

Also Read | Tata Steel wins Supreme Court relief as ₹890 crore GST demand is quashed

The senior advocate also referred to videographic evidence and questioned the reasoning of the High Court order. He also highlighted that rioting charge under section 191 BNS had been invoked against the petitioner even though no essential ingredients were made out, though it was ultimately dropped as no ingredients were made out.

Singhvi further argued that the offences invoked against Deepak were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and that the principles laid down in the Supreme Court's guidelines in Arnesh Kumar therefore applied.

He also raised concerns about the High Court's direction restricting the petitioner from posting messages or videos about the incident on social media. Singhvi said that instead of giving relief to the petitioner, the High Court imposed a“blanket gag order” on him.

Also Read | Supreme Court rules on Trump's mail-in ballot order

The Supreme Court, while issuing notice returnable in four weeks, ordered that proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR shall remain stayed in the meantime. It also stayed the effect and operation of the impugned High Court order, including the restriction concerning social media posts.

(With inputs from LiveLaw)

MENAFN31082026007365015876ID1111599927