The Supreme Court has issued a stay on the criminal proceedings against Deepak Kumar, an Uttarakhand-based gym owner, who is also known by the name ‘Mohammad’ Deepak. The case originated from a complaint made by right-wing activists after Kumar intervened in an incident involving the harassment of a Muslim shopkeeper over the name of his establishment in January. The stay was granted by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, following a petition submitted by Kumar challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision not to dismiss the case and its order preventing him from discussing the matter on social media.
The Supreme Court bench, addressing Kumar’s plea, stated, “Issue notice. In the meantime, proceedings from the impugned FIR and effect and operation of the high court order to remain stayed.” The bench has also requested a response from the Uttarakhand government regarding the situation.
Earlier, in March, the Uttarakhand High Court declined to quash the FIR filed against Kumar, which stemmed from a January 26 incident. This event saw Kumar objecting to the actions of right-wing activists who demanded an elderly Muslim shopkeeper remove the word “Baba” from his shop sign, claiming it had Hindu connotations. During the confrontation, Kumar identified himself as ‘Mohammad’ Deepak, although his legal name is Deepak Kumar. The activists subsequently filed a complaint accusing him of intimidation and verbal abuse.
The criminal charges against Kumar include allegations under Sections 115(2), 191(1), 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), relating to causing hurt, rioting, criminal intimidation, and intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace. In response to these charges, Kumar sought to have the FIR quashed by the High Court.
Despite Kumar’s challenge, the High Court, in March 2026, permitted the continuation of the police investigation, basing its decision on the assurance from the State Police that they would adhere to the Supreme Court’s guidelines for investigating offenses punishable by up to seven years in prison. The High Court also noted that the police were investigating Kumar’s own complaint, with two FIRs registered in connection with his allegations.
More Read
Moreover, the High Court imposed a restriction on Kumar from making any social media posts related to the case, citing concerns that such communications could interfere with the police investigation. The Court emphasized the necessity of this order, stating, “This is essential for fair investigation. If somebody sends messages and videos on social media, this will certainly affect investigation. This Court cannot permit any such activity.”
In addition to dismissing Kumar’s requests for protection against threats and for an inquiry into alleged biased conduct by certain police officers, the High Court recorded the State’s assurance that Kumar had been granted police protection. The Court expressed confidence in the police’s commitment to conducting a fair investigation.
These developments have now been escalated to the Supreme Court, with Senior Advocate AM Singhvi representing Kumar. Singhvi argued against what he described as a “blanket gag order” included in the High Court’s ruling.
