Uttarakhand HC declines to quash FIR against ‘Mohammad Deepak’, orders him to refrain from social media posts

The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday (March 20, 2026) refused to quash an FIR lodged against Kotdwar-based gym owner Deepak Kumar who came into national focus 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 in the town on January 26.

A video of the confrontation later went viral, particularly for the moment when he identified himself as ‘Mera naam Mohammad Deepak’.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal also directed Mr. Kumar to refrain from posting statements or videos on social media that could affect the ongoing investigation.

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

Sought relief

In his petition in the High Court, Mr. Kumar sought multiple reliefs, including quashing of an FIR alleging rioting and disturbance of law and order, filed on a complaint by members of a right-wing group. He also sought police protection citing threat to his life, registration of an FIR against the “perpetrators of hate speech”, and a departmental inquiry against police officials for alleged “partisan conduct”.

The State opposed the plea, alleging suppression of material facts and pointing out that FIRs had already been registered on his complaints. It further submitted that adequate security had been provided to him and that he had failed to cooperate with the investigation while continuing to post on social media.

‘Too active’ online, says court

In oral remarks, the court rebuked Mr. Kumar for being “too active” on social media, observing that he was attempting to sensationalise the matter and influence the investigation. “You are giving sermons on social media. You must let the police do its job after providing the necessary information,” the court said.

The court also took note of the State’s submission that Mr. Kumar had not disclosed that he was provided police protection for over a month. “Why have you not informed us that you were given protection from February 3 to March 13?” the court asked.

It further recorded the State’s submission that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation, and observed that a person under investigation must cooperate with authorities and repose trust in the investigative process.

Also read | ‘Mohammad’ Deepak gets wave of support across India

Looking to reduce tensions: Counsel

Counsel for Mr. Kumar, advocate Navneesh Negi, argued that his client had attempted to de-escalate the situation and that the viral video was circulated by others. It was also contended that despite identifying the alleged assailants, the police had instead registered a case against Mr. Kumar. He added that his client was not informed about the registration of FIRs on his complaint.

Responding to the State’s objection regarding social media activity, the counsel argued: “Everyone is on social media today. What illegality has been committed? Has anything unconstitutional been said?”

The State countered that while Mr. Kumar claimed awareness of developments in Haridwar and Dehradun, he professed ignorance about FIRs registered at a police station located close to his gym.

Declining to interfere at this stage, the court directed the investigating agency to proceed strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Disposing of the petition, the court directed the police to ensure a fair probe and reiterated that the petitioner must avoid any action, including social media activity, that could impede the investigation.