The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday strongly criticised Deepak Kumar, who recently came into the spotlight for defending a Muslim shopkeeper during a communal dispute in Kotdwar, and termed his petition seeking relief as a “complete abuse of process.”
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, while hearing Kumar’s plea to quash an FIR registered against him, questioned how an accused person could simultaneously seek police protection and demand action against officers investigating the case.
“This is complete abuse of process. The person who is an accused is praying for protection? Trust them. You are a suspected accused,” the court observed during the hearing.
Background: Kotdwar Dispute and FIR
The controversy stems from a January 26 incident in Kotdwar, where members of Bajrang Dal objected to a shop owned by Wakeel Ahmed being named “Baba School Dress and Matching Center.” The group reportedly demanded that the name be changed due to its proximity to the Baba Sidhbali Temple, a site of religious importance.
Deepak Kumar intervened during the confrontation, and a video of the incident later went viral. In the video, he is heard questioning the protesters and asserting that the shop had operated under the same name for decades. When asked about his identity, he responded, “My name is Mohammad Deepak.”
Following the incident, an FIR was filed on January 28 based on a complaint alleging intimidation and misconduct.
Court Calls Petition a “Pressure Tactic”
During the proceedings, the court expressed strong displeasure over Kumar’s multiple demands, including a request for a departmental inquiry against police officials.
“What type of prayer is this? This is a pressure tactic. I will dismiss with exemplary costs,” Justice Thapliyal remarked.
The bench further noted that such petitions could interfere with the investigation process. “You are attempting to influence the investigation,” the court said, adding that Kumar’s actions were placing unnecessary pressure on the police.
Protection Plea Questioned by Bench
Kumar’s counsel argued that he had been receiving threats after the incident and sought police protection. However, the court rejected the argument, stating that law enforcement agencies are already duty-bound to ensure safety.
“Suppose the court grants protection, how can they investigate?” the bench asked, highlighting the contradiction in the plea.
The state, in its submission, maintained that there was no immediate threat perception against Kumar. The court reiterated that the police are competent to handle both law and order and the safety of individuals involved.
Affidavit on Funds Sought
In a significant development, the court directed Kumar to file a detailed affidavit disclosing funds received in his bank account. This came after claims that he had been receiving small donations ranging between Rs 100 and Rs 500 following the viral video of the incident.
The court’s direction indicates that it is examining all aspects of the case, including financial transactions linked to the publicity surrounding the incident.
Counsel Argues De-escalation Attempt
Advocate Navnish Negi, appearing for Kumar, argued that his client had tried to defuse tensions during the confrontation and had himself filed complaints against those allegedly involved in hate speech and intimidation.
However, the court asked the counsel to focus strictly on the legal grounds for quashing the FIR instead of narrating the sequence of events. “Do not focus on the story, come to the relief,” the bench said.
Matter Adjourned, Case Under Scrutiny
Although the court expressed strong reservations about the petition, it agreed to adjourn the matter to Friday after the defence sought time to clarify certain aspects.
The case continues to draw attention as it sits at the intersection of legal procedure and communal tensions in the region. The court also remarked that such matters can have wider social implications, noting that even “one spark” can escalate into a larger issue.
