In his plea, ‘Mohammad’ Deepak sought police protection and sought registration of an FIR against the alleged perpetrators of hate speech and the dismissal of police officials for alleged partisan behaviour. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday (March 19, 2026) challenged a petition filed by Kotdwar-based gym owner ‘Mohammad’ Deepak, who sought police security amid alleged threats to his life, saying the “accused” seeking police protection while the investigation is underway was “totally unfounded” and indicative of an attempt to influence the investigation.
The High Court’s single judge Rakesh Thapliyal made these oral observations while hearing a writ petition to quash the FIR filed against Mr. Deepak on a complaint by members of a right-wing group accusing Mr. Deepak of rioting and disturbing public order.
In his plea, Mr. Deepak also sought police protection and sought registration of an FIR against the alleged perpetrators of hate speech and for the removal of police officials for alleged partisan conduct.
After questioning the maintainability of the petitioner’s additional prayers under Article 226, the Bench said that he could have approached the judge to register an FIR against hate speech.
“Instead of availing this remedy, filing a petition for registration is completely unwarranted, especially if the person requesting it is himself an accused,” the court said.
The court inquired about the “extent of threat perception in the petitioner” from counsel for the State, to which the latter replied that the investigating officer had not reported any threat perception to Mr. Deepak.
The Bench took cognizance of this and questioned the rationale behind the protection application, noting that the petitioner’s status remains as a “suspect accused”.
Advocate Navnish Negi, who represented Mr Deepak, argued that his client had faced threats and that a mob had gathered outside his residence and gym, raising fears for his safety. In addition, the court said that nothing had happened to his client since January 26, 2026.
“The first incident happened on the 26th of January… then the second happened on the 31st of January. February passed, mid-March ended. Who has touched your client so far,” the court asked.
Justice Thapliyal added that the police are more cautious about Mr Deepak’s safety as he is an accused in another FIR and the police have to investigate the matter and file a case.
The bench also took serious note of the prayer seeking the removal of the police officials and said that such allegations were not supported by evidence and could interfere with the ongoing investigation.
She also expressed displeasure over the drafting of the petition and warned counsel against including multiple reliefs that could “sensationalize” the issue and said the same could be dismissed on that ground.
During the proceedings, the State informed the Court that two FIRs had already been registered based on the petitioner’s complaints. The petitioner’s lawyer requested time to verify these facts and the court granted him a deadline of the next day.
Mr Deepak attracted national attention after confronting a group of right-wing activists accused of harassing a 71-year-old Muslim shop owner and pressuring him to change the name of his shop. The episode took place on Republic Day in Kotdwar. A video of the confrontation later went viral, especially the moment he identified himself as “Mera naam Mohammad Deepak”.
Subsequently, Mr Deepak reported receiving threats and on 31 January 2026 a group gathered outside his gym in protest. The police have registered three FIRs in connection with the episode, one of which is filed against Mr. Deepak. The incident also led to an outpouring of support for Mr Deepak from across the country, although he said his business suffered as gym memberships dropped following his intervention.
Published – 19 March 2026 22:11 IST
