The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Deepak Kumar, a gym owner who gained social media prominence for identifying himself as “Mohammad Deepak” during a confrontation with right-wing activists in January. While the court allowed the investigation to proceed, it directed the state police to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court’s “Arnesh Kumar” guidelines regarding arrests for offences punishable by less than seven years of imprisonment.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, while disposing of the writ petition, also restrained Kumar from making social media commentary related to the case, noting that such activities could hamper the ongoing investigation.
The matter originates from an incident on January 26, when Deepak Kumar intervened during a confrontation between Hindutva activists and an elderly Muslim shopkeeper. The activists were reportedly demanding that the shopkeeper remove the word “Baba” from his shop’s name, alleging it carried a Hindu connotation.
During the heated exchange, when asked for his name, Kumar identified himself as “Mohammad Deepak” as a gesture of solidarity. While the act was widely circulated on social media as a form of resistance against communal harassment, it led to a criminal case being lodged against Kumar based on a complaint by the activists. Kumar subsequently faced a campaign of online vitriol and death threats, prompting him to approach the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR, police protection, and a departmental inquiry against certain police officers.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was a result of his client’s lawful exercise of solidarity and that the police were acting in a biased manner. Counsel further questioned the restrictions on social media use, stating, “Everybody is on social media. What illegal (act) have I done? Have I said anything unconstitutional? It is not a crime.”
Conversely, the State’s counsel pointed out that the offences alleged in the FIR are punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment. The State further claimed that Kumar was not cooperating with the investigation and was instead “busy on social media,” which was allegedly interfering with the probe.
Justice Thapliyal observed that while the petitioner has the right to challenge the FIR, the investigation must take its natural course. Regarding the prayer for police protection, the Court remarked:
“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.”
The Court was particularly critical of the prayer for a departmental inquiry against the investigating officers, terming it “wholly unwarranted” at this stage.
“This will not only affect the ongoing investigation but also affect the morale of the investigating agency,” the Court noted, adding that a person facing investigation cannot simultaneously seek a departmental inquiry against the officers conducting that very probe.
The High Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:
- Adherence to Arnesh Kumar Guidelines: The Investigating Officer (IO) is legally obligated to follow the Supreme Court’s formulations in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which mandates issuing a notice to the accused rather than automatic arrest for minor offences.
- Social Media Restraint: The Court restrained Deepak Kumar from posting messages, videos, or comments on social media regarding the January 26 incident or the ongoing cases, stating that such conduct hampers the probe.
- Cooperation with Probe: The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the police and “not to create any problem.”
- Recourse for Protection: While denying immediate court-ordered protection, the Bench noted that Kumar remains free to approach competent police officers if he perceives a genuine threat to his life.
