The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a petition by ‘Mohammad’ Deepak seeking to quash an FIR against him and warned both Deepak and his co-petitioner Vijay Rawat regarding posting messages or videos on social media on Friday.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal told both petitioners that they must not cause further sensationalisation of the matter and ordered them not to post any statements or videos regarding the case on social media, as there is an ongoing investigation.
“Don’t sensationalise the matter. I will restrain you from giving any statement on social media because you are an accused facing an investigation. Don’t give any statement on social media. This is my strict direction to you,” the Indian Express quoted Justice Thapliyal.
On January 26, 2021, Deepak confronted a group of men who were allegedly harassing a 70-year-old Muslim shopkeeper and demanding that he remove the word "Baba" from the name of his shop. During the altercation, Deepak identified himself as Mohammad Deepak. Five days later, alleged members of the Bajrang Dal attempted to confront Deepak at his home; however, police intervened and stopped the alleged members of the Bajrang Dal from entering Deepak's property.
After this incident, Deepak and Rawat filed a petition after having been booked by the police based on a complaint of a resident. The attorney for Deepak and Rawat stated that the police had failed to take any action, even though video evidence and descriptions of the alleged assailants were available to the police.
The Court noted that while the petitioners alleged that the police did not file FIRs against the alleged assailants, the petitioners were actively engaging in social media and providing statements and interviews about the matter.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal stated, “You are before the court, you are challenging the FIR, you are saying the police didn’t do anything, and you are busy on social media.”
The bench emphasised that both the January 26 and 31 incidents were unfortunate events; however, they did stress that the investigation of these events should be conducted fairly and transparently. The petitioners are instructed to fully cooperate with the investigation and not make or disseminate any posts or videos in relation to the incidents, as such actions on the part of the petitioners could impact the outcome of the investigation.
Deepak's requests for police protection, filing FIRs against the individuals who congregated at his gym on January 31, and departmental inquiries against police officers who allegedly acted improperly were also denied by the court because the court described these requests as an attempt to "sensationalise" the incident, which has the potential to interfere with an ongoing investigation.
Additionally, the bench addressed the petitioners' assertion that police were shielding the individuals accused of participating in the incidents. The court observed that the petitioner’s gym is located only 100 metres from the police station where the FIRs were filed and that Deepak had published misinformation regarding his involvement in the incidents via his use of social media.
ALSO READ: India's Forex Reserves Fall For Second Consecutive Week, Rupee Hits Record Low; Key Details
With respect to the issue of protection, the court found that the police had previously granted protection from February 3 to March 13 to Deepak. The court also explained that simply being the subject of an investigation does not automatically entitle a person to special protection; however, any alleged threat may be reported to the appropriate authority.
Justice Thapliyal ruled that the allegations contained in the First Information Report (FIR) were only punishable by imprisonment for a period of time that did not exceed 7 years; therefore, the investigation must comply with the directions outlined in the Arnesh Kumar case passed down from India's Supreme Court.
The court stated, “The writ petition is disposed of with instructions to the police that the guidelines are followed. Simultaneously, the petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation and not to be in touch unnecessarily on social media platforms. He is a citizen and should abide by the law.”