Uttarakhand High Court questions ‘Mohammad’ Deepak’s plea for protection, calls it ‘pressure tactic’

Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday (March 19, 2026) questioned the petition filed by a Kotdwar-based gym owner, ‘Mohammad’ Deepak, seeking police security amid alleged threat to his life and said that “an accused” seeking police protection while investigation is on-going was “wholly unwarranted” and indicative of an attempt to influence the probe.

A single judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal made these oral observations while hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against Mr. Deepak on the complaint of members of a right-wing group who accused Mr. Deepak of rioting and disturbing public order.

In his plea, Mr. Deepak also requested for police protection and sought registration of an FIR against alleged perpetrators of hate speech, and a departmental inquiry against police officials for purportedly partisan conduct.

Questioning the maintainability of the petitioner’s additional prayers under Article 226, the Bench said that he could have approached the magistrate for registration of FIR against hate speech.

“Instead of availing that remedy, filing a petition for registration is wholly unwarranted, particularly when the person seeking it is himself an accused,” the Court said.

The Court asked about the “extent of threat perception on the petitioner” from the counsel for the state on which the same has responded that the investigating officer had reported no threat perception to Mr. Deepak.

Taking note of this, the Bench questioned the rationale behind request for protection and noted that the petitioner’s status remained that of a “suspected accused”.

Advocate Navnish Negi, who represented Mr. Deepak argued that his client had been facing threats and that a crowd had gathered outside his residence and gym, creating apprehension for his safety. To this the court said that nothing happened to his client since January 26, 2026.

“First incident happened on January 26… then second took place on January 31. February has passed, half of March is over. Anyone has touched your client so far,” the Court questioned.

Justice Thapliyal added that police is more cautious for the security to Mr. Deepak as he is an accused in another FIR and police has to investigate the matter and file a charge sheet.

The Bench also took serious note of the prayer seeking a departmental inquiry against police officials, stating that such allegations were unsupported by evidence and could interfere with pending investigations.

It also expressed displeasure over drafting of the petition and cautioned the counsel against including multiple reliefs that could “sensationalise” the issue and indicated that the same could be dismissed on this ground.

During the proceedings, the State informed the Court that two FIRs had already been registered on the basis of the petitioner’s complaints. The petitioner’s counsel sought time to verify these facts, and the court granted time until the next day.

Mr. Deepak drew national attention after he confronted a group of right-wing activists accused of harassing a 71-year-old Muslim shop owner and pressuring him to rename his store. The episode occurred on Republic Day in Kotdwar. A video of the confrontation later went viral, particularly for the moment when he identified himself as “Mera naam Mohammad Deepak”.

In the aftermath, Mr. Deepak reported receiving threats, and on January 31, 2026, a group gathered outside his gym in protest. The police registered three FIRs in connection with the episode, one among which is lodged against Mr. Deepak. The incident also led to an outpouring of support for Mr. Deepak from across the country, though he stated that his business suffered as gym memberships declined following his intervention.