2 days ago
Supreme Court Stays FIR Against Kotdwar Gym Operator Deepak
The Supreme Court has temporarily paused a criminal case against gym operator Deepak Kumar.
Many people began calling him “Mohammad Deepak” after a video spread online.
The video showed him confronting people described as Bajrang Dal members.
They had objected to a Muslim shopkeeper using the word “Baba” in his shop’s name.
Deepak said he was trying to help the shopkeeper.
People who complained accused Deepak and another man of several crimes.
Deepak’s lawyer said he was a good Samaritan and that the complaint was unfair.
The High Court had also stopped the people involved from discussing the case on social media.
The Supreme Court has paused that restriction while it considers Deepak’s challenge.
The Supreme Court stayed proceedings in an Uttarakhand FIR against gym operator Deepak Kumar, known as “Mohammad Deepak.”
The FIR followed a January 26 confrontation involving Bajrang Dal members and Muslim shopkeeper Vakeel Ahmed over the word “Baba” in his shop’s name.
Deepak’s lawyer said he intervened to help Ahmed, while complainants accused Deepak and Vijay Rawat of rioting, causing hurt, intentional insult, theft, and casteist abuse.
The Uttarakhand High Court had rejected Deepak’s requests for police protection and action over alleged police bias, while restricting social-media comments about the case.
The Supreme Court stayed both the FIR proceedings and the High Court’s order, sought responses, and listed the matter after four weeks.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Deepak Kumar, Vakeel Ahmed, alleged Bajrang Dal members, Vijay Rawat, and the Uttarakhand government are involved.
- What
- The Supreme Court stayed proceedings in the FIR against Deepak and stayed the Uttarakhand High Court’s related social-media restriction.
- Where
- The confrontation occurred in Kotdwar, in Uttarakhand’s Pauri Garhwal district.
- When
- The confrontation occurred on January 26; the Supreme Court issued its interim order on a Monday, with the matter listed after four weeks.
- Why
- Deepak challenged the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR and its decisions concerning police protection, alleged police bias, and social-media comments.
Deepak’s Defense
Complainants and State’s Position
Reason for intervention
Deepak’s Defense
Deepak’s lawyer said he intervened to assist Ahmed after alleged Bajrang Dal members objected to the shop using “Baba” in its name.
Complainants and State’s Position
The complainants said Deepak and Vijay Rawat intervened against them and committed offenses including causing hurt, intentional insult, theft, and casteist abuse.
Validity of the FIR
Deepak’s Defense
Deepak’s lawyer called him a good Samaritan, cited video evidence, and argued that the rioting charge lacked its essential legal elements; reports said that charge was later dropped.
Complainants and State’s Position
The FIR filed after a complaint by Bajrang Dal and Vishva Hindu Parishad members alleged rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult.
Police protection and conduct
Deepak’s Defense
Deepak sought police protection for himself and his family and a departmental inquiry into allegedly biased police conduct.
Complainants and State’s Position
The state said Deepak had received police protection until March 13, that two FIRs had been filed on his complaint, and that he faced no threat.
Social-media restriction
Deepak’s Defense
Deepak’s lawyer described the High Court’s restriction on posts and videos about the matter as a “blanket gag order.”
Complainants and State’s Position
The High Court said the restriction was intended to prevent comments from provoking public sentiment; the Supreme Court stayed it while hearing the petition.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- Deepak Kumar, referred to in reports as “Mohammad Deepak.”
- Shopkeeper
- Vakeel Ahmed, whose shop name included the word “Baba.”
- Incident
- A January 26 confrontation involving alleged Bajrang Dal members and Deepak.
- FIR allegations
- The FIR cited rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult intended to provoke a breach of peace; complainants also alleged theft and casteist abuse.
- High Court order
- The Uttarakhand High Court rejected Deepak’s requests for police protection and action against officers, and restricted comments about the incident on social media.
- Supreme Court action
- The Court stayed the FIR proceedings and the High Court order, issued notice to respondents, and scheduled the matter after four weeks.
- Other cases
- Kotdwar police filed three cases in connection with the matter, including one against 30 to 40 unidentified protesters.
Quotes
Abhishek Manu Singhvi
Senior advocate representing Deepak Kumar before the Supreme Court
“I am neither a Hindu, neither a Muslim, neither a Sikh, nor a Christian. First and foremost, I am a human being. Because after I die, I have to answer to God and to humanity, not to any religion.”
scroll.in
“How can a good samaritan be subjected to this kind of a complaint?”
thehansindia.com
deccanchronicle.com
livemint.com
rediff.com
Sources
SC stays proceedings in FIR against gym operator Mohd Deepak
SC Stays Proceedings in FIR Against Kotdwar Gym Operator Mohammad Deepak
SC stays FIR filed against ‘Mohammed’ Deepak for confronting Bajrang Dal
Supreme Court stays FIR against Uttarakhand gym owner 'Mohammed' Deepak over Bajrang Dal row
SC stays FIR against Kotdwar's 'Mohammad Deepak'
Related news
Bareilly Gym Dispute Turns Violent: Woman Assaulted, 2 Arrested
Sukhbir Badal Attacked; UP Court Drops Muzaffarnagar Riot Case
Delhi Police Register FIR After Rahul Gandhi’s Pellet-Injury Sit-In
High Court Seeks Punjab Police Report On Instagram FIR
Supreme Court Rejects Badal Plea in AKJ Defamation Case
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh to Pay Advocate Dues
Haryana sanitation workers’ strike puts BJP government under pressure
Orissa High Court Says Brothel Customers Cannot Face Trafficking Charges
