Mohammed Deepak Kumar came into national focus after he confronted a group of right-wing activists accused of harassing a 71-year-old Muslim shop owner, pressuring him to rename his store in the town on January 26, 2026. File
| Photo Credit: Tayyab Hussain
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 31, 2026) stayed criminal proceedings against Kotdwar-based gym owner Deepak Kumar, better known as ‘Mohammed’ Deepak, who was booked for rioting following an alleged altercation with Bajrang Dal workers over the name of a shop. The court also stayed a March 20, 2026 order of the Uttarakhand High Court, restraining him from making social media posts concerning the incident and the case.Mr. Kumar came into national focus after he confronted a group of right-wing activists accused of harassing a 71-year-old Muslim shop owner, pressuring him to rename his store in the town on January 26, 2026.A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted the interim relief while seeking the Uttarakhand government’s response on Mr. Kumar’s petition challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against him.“Issue notice returnable within four weeks. In the meantime, proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR shall remain stayed, and also the effect and operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court,” the Bench said in its brief order.‘Good Samaritan’Appearing for Mr. Kumar, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi submitted that a case of rioting was not made out against his client as the essential ingredients of the offence were absent. He contended that Mr. Kumar had intervened only after Bajrang Dal members confronted a Muslim shopkeeper over the use of the word “Baba” in the name of his shop.“How can a Good Samaritan be subjected to this kind of a complaint?” Mr. Singhvi asked, questioning the initiation of criminal proceedings against his client.He also assailed the High Court’s direction restraining Mr. Kumar from posting about the incident on social media, describing it as a “blanket gag order”. He contended that instead of granting relief to Mr. Kumar, the High Court had imposed an additional restriction on him.Taking the submissions into account, the Bench stayed both the criminal proceedings and the operation of the High Court directive, and sought the Uttarakhand government’s response within four weeks.Before the High Court, Mr. Kumar had alleged that the police failed to act on his complaints despite being provided with evidence, including videos and details of those allegedly involved. In its March order, however, the High Court 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. It had observed that the reliefs sought were an attempt to “sensationalise” the issue and could interfere with the ongoing investigation.A single-judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal had also restrained Mr. Kumar and his friend Vijay Rawat from posting about the incident on social media while the investigation was pending.“The petitioners should cooperate with the investigation, and till the investigation is completed, they should not indulge in sending messages or videos with regard to the incident. This is essential for a fair and transparent investigation. If someone indulges in sending messages or videos on social media, this will affect the investigation,” the High Court had said.On January 26, Mr. Kumar stood up to a group of men who were harassing a 70-year-old Muslim shopkeeper to drop the word ‘Baba’ from his shop’s name. During the confrontation, when asked his name, Mr. Kumar told the crowd his name was “Mohammad Deepak”. Five days later, members of the Bajrang Dal gathered to confront Mr. Kumar, but were restrained by the police. Published - August 31, 2026 05:15 pm IST
