Dehradun: The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday, March 20, refused to quash the first information report (FIR) filed against Deepak Kumar, more popularly known as “Mohammed Deepak,” and restrained him from commenting on social media regarding the January 26 case.

An FIR was registered against Deepak after he confronted a group of right-wing goons who were harassing a Muslim shop owner over the name of his shop being “Baba.”

Deepak was accused of rioting, causing hurt and committing an intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, while hearing the quashing petition, issued an oral reprimand regarding the petitioner’s frequent social media activity. The court expressed concern that such posts might sensationalise the matter and noted submissions alleging a lack of cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

The High Court disposed of the plea and directed the investigating agency to continue the probe in strict accordance with the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Your social media posts can sensationalise the matter: High Court

“Aap social media par ja jakar pravachan de rahe ho, matter ko sensationalise kar rahe ho. Aapne information de di police ko, ab police ko apna kaam karne do (You are going around on social media giving sermons and sensationalising the matter. You have already given the information to the police; now, let the police do their job),” Justice Thapliyal told Deepak’s counsel Advocate Navnish Negi.

However, Advocate Negi, representing Deepak, said his client only attempted to deescalate the situation and the video went viral after the other side shared it.

The lawyer argued that although the petitioner had already found the names and social media profiles of the attackers from other cities, the police ignored that information. Instead, the police filed an FIR against Deepak to pressure him.

When the state objected to Deepak’s social media posts, Advocate Negi said, “Everyone is on social media…What illegal have I done? Have I said anything unconstitutional? It is not a crime.”

“Don’t sensationalise the entire matter. I am now preventing you from making any statements on social media. Don’t make any attempt to sensationalise the issue. You are a suspected accused,” the court ordered.

Police protection denied

The court noted that any accused spreading messages and videos on social media while under investigation creates an issue for the investigation agency.

The High Court had earlier reprimanded the gym owner and asked how an accused could seek police protection.

The bench termed such petitions as pressure tactics aimed at influencing the ongoing investigation and sensationalising the entire matter.

The court also questioned the petitioner’s justification for seeking police protection when he himself is a “suspected accused.”