‘Mohammad’ Deepak Kumar, an Uttarakhand-based gym owner who came into the limelight after taking a stand against some Bajrang Dal activists allegedly harassing a Muslim shopkeeper in Kotdwar, was questioned in the Uttarakhand high court for seeking police protection and demanding an inquiry into the police investigation. New Delhi: Kotdwar gym owner Deepak Kumar alias Mohammad Deepak, right, interacts with the media after a meeting with Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, in New Delhi. (PTI)
Deepak had come to the rescue of a Muslim shopkeeper when a group of right-wing activists allegedly harassed an elderly man, pressuring him to change the name of his store from a Hindu name to a Muslim one. The police registered three FIRs following the incident, one of which was filed against Deepak.
A right-wing group accused him of rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace in connection with the January 26 incident in Kotdwar.
Kumar has now approached the high court seeking quashing of the same FIR. In his petition, he also requested the court to direct the registration of an FIR under Section 196 of the BNS against those who allegedly made hate speeches. Additionally, he sought police protection and an inquiry into the police investigation.
Also Read: 'Rahul Gandhi said he'll join my gym': ‘Mohammad Deepak’ after meeting Congress leader
But why did the court questioned his requests in the petition? A single bench of the high court hearing the matter questioned the validity of the petitions and reprimanded Deepak for seeking protection and a departmental inquiry against police officers investigating the case, alleging partisan conduct, while he himself is a ‘suspected accused’.
The court observed that these were pressure tactics used by him and his counsel to influence and sensationalise the matter, according to a report by PTI. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, who was hearing the case, said that since Deepak is a ‘suspected accused’, it was unclear how he could seek police protection.
Justice Thapliyal asked the state counsel about the threat perception, to which it was replied that the investigating officer had found no such threat to Deepak.
“Who is pressurising you? You are sensationalising the matter on social media? Police has to maintain law and order, aap pravachan de rahe ho social media pe,” the high court bench questioned Deepak.
Representing Deepak, advocate Navnish Negi argued that his client had been receiving threats since the January 26 incident and that a crowd had gathered outside his gym days later, creating fear. As per The Hindu report, Justice Thapliyal remarked, “The first incident happened on January 26, the second on January 31. February has passed and half of March is over — has anyone touched your client so far?”
The court also expressed displeasure over the drafting of the petition, noting that multiple reliefs had been sought by a ‘suspected accused’ to sensationalise the issue and put pressure on the investigating officers.