SC mantiene la FIR archivada contra Deepak por enfrentarse a Bajrang Dal

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a first information report (FIR) filed against Dehradun gym owner Deepak Kumar, known online as “Mohammed Deepak,” for his involvement in a confrontation with members of the Bajrang Dal in January. The court’s decision came as part of its review of Kumar’s petition challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also stayed the High Court’s earlier order restricting Kumar from making public comments or posting content related to the case on social media. The incident occurred on January 26 in Pauri Garhwal district, Uttarakhand, when a group of individuals identified as Bajrang Dal members reportedly confronted an elderly Muslim shopkeeper named Vakeel Ahmed. They objected to the use of the term “Baba” in the shop’s name, which they claimed violated certain religious norms. Kumar, along with another individual, Vijay Rawat, intervened to protest the group’s actions. According to reports, the two men were then instructed not to interfere further. Subsequently, an FIR was filed against Kumar and Rawat in late January, citing charges of rioting, causing injury, and intentionally insulting others with the aim of inciting unrest. The FIR was registered based on a complaint submitted by two individuals affiliated with the Bajrang Dal and the Vishva Hindu Parishad, both of which are part of the broader Hindutva movement linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). These groups accused Kumar and Rawat of stealing their personal belongings and hurling caste-based abuse. Following the FIR, approximately 40 individuals gathered near Kumar’s gym, chanting slogans against him and blocking a national highway. Kumar had previously filed a complaint against these protestors, but the police instead registered the case based on an anonymous complaint from an officer. During the confrontation, Kumar was captured on video engaging in a dialogue with the group. In the footage, he questioned why other shops were permitted to use the word “Baba” while Ahmed’s shop was not. He also highlighted that the shop had been operating for over three decades and expressed confusion over the demand to change its name. When asked for his name, Kumar responded, “My name is Mohammad Deepak.” Later, he clarified that he used the name to emphasize his identity as an Indian citizen and advocate for equality under the law. Kumar subsequently posted a video on social media in which he stated that he did not identify with any particular religion and emphasized that all humans are equal before God and society. He reiterated that no individual, regardless of faith, should be targeted based on religious affiliation. This statement resonated widely on social platforms and contributed to his growing recognition as a symbol of resistance against religious discrimination. Legal representatives for Kumar, including Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued before the Supreme Court that the FIR against him lacked merit and that the charges were unjustified. Singhvi questioned how a person acting in the interest of justice could face such accusations, highlighting the contradiction between the nature of the incident and the charges levied. Additionally, he noted that the charge of rioting under Section 191 of the Bombay Police Act was not substantiated and was eventually withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. The case has drawn considerable attention, with Kumar receiving public backing from prominent figures, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who praised his bravery and referred to his gym as a “shop of love.” Other political leaders, such as CPI(M) MP John Brittas, also extended their support. Furthermore, several Supreme Court lawyers collectively purchased memberships at Kumar’s gym, offering both financial aid and legal assistance amid the business’s declining fortunes. His gym, Hulk Gym, had previously maintained around 150 regular members, but the incident led to a sharp drop in clientele, resulting in substantial financial strain.