The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed the bail plea of Ittehad-e-Millat Council chief Maulana Tauqeer Raza in connection with the September 2025 communal clashes in Bareilly, ruling that his post-incident sloganeering challenged the authority of the law and the sovereignty of the nation.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that bail could not be granted at this stage because charges against the cleric have not yet been framed by the trial court, even though investigators submitted a charge sheet on December 21, 2025. Raza has been in judicial custody since October 13, 2025.
Judicial Findings on Provocative Slogans
The court concurred with arguments presented by Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, who highlighted that Raza raised a beheading slogan targeting those accused of blasphemy during a public address following the unrest.
Justice Srivastava observed that such rhetoric poses a direct threat to India’s territorial integrity and legal order. The bench also drew a clear distinction between the disputed slogan and conventional religious chants such as “Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu Akbar,” “Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal,” “Jai Shri Ram,” and “Har Har Mahadev,” pointing out that expressions of devotion toward a spiritual teacher or deity cannot be placed in the same category as calls to violence.
Defiance of Administrative Orders
The prosecution’s complaint traces the violence back to September 26, 2025, when Raza called on members of the Muslim community to assemble at the Islamia Inter College grounds immediately after Friday prayers. The planned demonstration was organized to protest official policies and the administration’s refusal to permit an “I Love Mohammed” campaign rally, with participants intending to present a memorandum addressed to the President of India through the Bareilly District Magistrate.
Local authorities had already imposed prohibitory curbs under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. Despite the ban, a massive assembly marched from Maulana Azad Inter College toward Shyamganj Chauraha, displaying placards and raising inflammatory chants. When police intervened to enforce the restrictions, segments of the crowd turned violent, injuring on-duty officers, destroying public property, and rioting.
Rejection of Cleric’s Defense
Addressing the defense’s argument that Raza had called off the mobilization after being denied clearance and following the imposition of Section 163, the bench noted that crowds proceeded with the march regardless. The court observed that the cleric utilized Friday prayers to mobilize people for his own political and religious ends without administrative approval.
The bench further criticized Raza’s subsequent actions, noting that he openly thanked the crowd for turning up in large numbers and commended their conduct after police personnel had been assaulted.
