The Supreme Court on Monday stayed criminal proceedings against Kotdwar gym operator Deepak Kumar, who gained public attention earlier this year after intervening in a confrontation involving a local shopkeeper in Uttarakhand.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also stayed the operation of a March 20 Uttarakhand High Court order that had dismissed Kumar’s petition. The apex court issued notices seeking responses from the Uttarakhand state government and other relevant parties, listing the matter for its next hearing in four weeks.
Apex Court Intervention
Appearing for Kumar, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi questioned the lodging of a police complaint against his client, arguing before the bench that an individual acting as a good samaritan should not be subjected to criminal proceedings.
The legal challenge before the top court arose after the Uttarakhand High Court rejected Kumar’s plea seeking the quashing of a first information report registered against him, enhanced police security for his family, and a departmental probe against police officers over allegations of biased conduct. In its March 20 directive, the high court had also prohibited the involved parties from posting comments about the episode on social media platforms to avoid provoking public sentiments.
Origins of the Dispute
The controversy stems from an incident in Kotdwar, Uttarakhand, where members of the Bajrang Dal staged a protest against a Muslim shopkeeper, Vakil Ahmed, objecting to his store being named “Baba.”
A video recorded during the encounter in January went viral across social media, showing Kumar confronting the protesting crowd. When asked to identify himself during the face-off, Kumar stated his name as “Mohammad Deepak.”
Multiple Police Cases and State Stand
Following the incident, Kotdwar police initiated three separate cases. The initial case was registered against 30 to 40 unidentified individuals who participated in the demonstration, citing charges of disturbing public peace, obstructing official duties, and manhandling police personnel.
Kumar subsequently faced an FIR containing allegations of rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace. In response, Kumar approached the judiciary seeking to quash the charges against him, initiate a case against those responsible for alleged hate speech, and mandate an inquiry into the police handling of the matter.
During the high court proceedings, the Uttarakhand government opposed Kumar’s petition, contending that he had suppressed key facts. The state submitted that Kumar had been provided police security until March 13, that two separate FIRs had been registered based on his complaints, and that assessments indicated he faced no active threat.
