‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ Cannot Be Equated With ‘Jai Shri Ram’, ‘Allahu-Akbar’: Allahabad HC

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, President of the Ittehad e Millat Council (IMC), in connection with the Bareilly riots, holding that his call for a large public gathering without administrative permission, and his subsequent conduct thanking the crowd for responding to that call, could not be approved of, even though he was not physically present at the spot when the violence occurred.

Justice Ashutosh Srivastava was hearing a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS by the applicant in Case Crime No. 489 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bareilly, under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act. His bail plea had earlier been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bareilly, on 10.11.2025, and he has remained in custody since 27.09.2025.

According to the prosecution case, the applicant had, at a meeting held, called upon members of the Muslim community to assemble at the grounds of Islamia Inter College, Bareilly, to protest alleged atrocities and the lodging of false cases against the community. After the local administration imposed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS banning assembly of five or more persons, around 200 to 250 people nonetheless marched towards the college in response to the call, and when police tried to stop them, the crowd allegedly raised slogans, pelted stones and petrol bombs, opened fire and assaulted police personnel, leaving several officers injured and public property damaged. Firearms, cartridges, sharp weapons and other articles were recovered from the spot.

Counsel for the applicant argued that he was falsely implicated for political reasons and had no role in mobilising or participating in the gathering, pointing out that the original call for the meeting had come from other IMC spokespersons, that a subsequent call by the applicant related to a different location, Naumahal, and that he was under house arrest at around 10:00 hrs on the date of the incident, establishing his absence from the spot. It was submitted that the applicant had no direct role in inciting violence, had already secured bail in nine of twelve earlier cases against him, and undertook to cooperate with the trial if released.

Opposing the plea, the Additional Advocate General for the State submitted that the applicant was the kingpin and mastermind behind the riots, having exhorted the Muslim community at the 19.09.2025 meeting to gather at Islamia Inter College using the slogan "Gustakh e Nabi Ki Ek Hi Saza, Sar Tan Se Juda," and having later, from the house of a co-accused located about 8 km from his own residence, broadcast a video thanking the crowd for responding in large numbers, contrary to his claim of having been under house arrest. It was submitted that the mob had snatched weapons and equipment from police personnel, opened fire, assaulted officers and destroyed property, and that the applicant, though absent from the spot, was instrumental in inciting the gathering through his public calls.

Examining the record, the court found that the applicant, to satisfy his religious and political interests, had used the occasion of Friday prayers to call for a large public assembly without seeking administrative permission, and that his post incident conduct in thanking the crowd for responding to that call could not be approved of, even though he was not personally present when the violence broke out.

The court agreed with the State's submission that the slogan raised during the incident amounted to a challenge to the authority of law and to the sovereignty and integrity of India, and incited people toward armed rebellion punishable under law, observing that it could not be equated with religious slogans such as "Nara e Takbir, Allahu Akbar," "Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal," "Jai Shri Ram" or "Har Har Mahadev," which express reverence for a deity or Guru rather than any call to violence.

The court also noted that while the chargesheet against the applicant had been filed on 21.12.2025, formal charges were yet to be framed against him. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the court held that it was not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage, and the bail application was accordingly rejected.

Appearances:

For the Applicant: Mr. Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Seshadari Trivedi; Mr. Imran Ullah, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Imdad Siddiqui, Advocates.

For the State: Mr. Anoop Trivedi, Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Paritosh Malviya and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, A.G.A.

Case Title: Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2637 of 2026