Supreme Court Stays Proceedings in FIR Against Kotdwar Gym Owner Deepak Kumar

Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed criminal proceedings against Deepak Kumar, a Kotdwar-based gym owner who came into national focus after a confrontation with Bajrang Dal workers over the name of a Muslim shopkeeper's store. Kumar had been booked for rioting following the alleged altercation. The court also stayed the operation of a March 20, 2026 order of the Uttarakhand High Court that had restrained him from posting about the incident or the case on social media.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted the interim relief while seeking the Uttarakhand government's response on Kumar's petition challenging the High Court's refusal to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against him. The court issued notice returnable within four weeks and stated that proceedings pursuant to the FIR would remain stayed, as would the effect and operation of the High Court order.

Background: The January Confrontation and Its Aftermath

Kumar came into the limelight in January after a video went viral on social media showing him confronting a group of right-wing activists accused of harassing a 71-year-old Muslim shopkeeper, Vakil Ahmed, who was being pressured to rename his shop, which bore the word 'Baba'. During the confrontation, when asked his name, Kumar replied, "My name is Mohammad Deepak."

Five days after the initial confrontation, members of the Bajrang Dal gathered to confront Kumar, but were restrained by police. Three separate cases were subsequently filed by the Kotdwar police in connection with the matter. One case was against 30-40 unidentified people involved in the protest against the shopkeeper, alleging disturbing public peace, obstructing government work, and manhandling police officers.

The FIR against Kumar was for alleged rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. Kumar moved the High Court seeking quashing of that FIR. He also requested that an FIR be filed against those responsible for alleged hate speech, that police protection be provided to himself and his family, and that a departmental inquiry be conducted against police officers for alleged partisan conduct.

High Court Proceedings and State Government's Response

Before the High Court, Kumar alleged that the police had failed to act on his complaints despite being provided with evidence, including videos and details of those allegedly involved. However, in its March order, the single-judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal rejected his prayers for police protection, registration of an FIR against those who had allegedly assembled outside his gym on January 31, and a departmental inquiry against police officials. The court observed that the reliefs sought were an attempt to "sensationalise" the issue and could interfere with the ongoing investigation. It also restrained Kumar and his friend Vijay Rawat from posting about the incident on social media while the investigation was pending.

The state government, in its submissions to the High Court, contended that Kumar had concealed crucial facts, including that he had been provided police protection until March 13 and that two FIRs had been filed on his complaint. The state also told the court that Kumar did not face any threat.

Arguments in the Supreme Court

Appearing for Kumar, senior advocate M. Singhvi argued before the Supreme Court that a case of rioting was not made out against his client as the essential ingredients of the offence were absent. He contended that Kumar had intervened only after Bajrang Dal members confronted the Muslim shopkeeper over the use of the word 'Baba'. "How can a Good Samaritan be subjected to this kind of a complaint?" Singhvi asked, questioning the initiation of criminal proceedings against Kumar.

He also criticised the High Court's direction restricting Kumar from posting about the incident on social media, describing it as a "blanket gag order," and argued that instead of granting relief, the High Court had imposed an additional restriction. The Supreme Court, in its brief order, stayed the proceedings and the High Court directive, and posted the matter for further hearing after four weeks.