Back
Prayer at Home Turns Perilous: Allahabad HC Shields Witness from Bulldozer Threats
In a striking intervention, the has ordered 24/7 armed protection for Haseen Khan, a Bareilly resident whose routine namaz at his private home spiraled into police action, coercion, and intimidation. A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan , hearing Writ-C No. 5646 of 2026 filed by petitioner Tarik Khan against the and two others, recorded Khan's harrowing testimony and summoned District Magistrate Avinash Singh and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya for on .
From Quiet Devotion to Police Custody
The saga began on , when Haseen Khan, the homeowner, was offering namaz inside his residence with family members. Police intervened, detaining him and issuing a (fine), despite the state's prior acknowledgment—citing Article 25 of the Constitution—that no permission is needed for private prayer. Khan later alleged post-arrest encounters with local figures like Arif Pradhan and Mukhtiyar, who warned of bulldozer demolition if he didn't testify as directed in court. Reports from The Indian Express and The Wire detail how police then encircled him, forcing his illiterate thumb impression on an undisclosed document.
Petitioner Tarik Khan's sought relief against this interference, escalating to contempt allegations against the officials for potential court-order violations.
Coerced Silence or Courtroom Truth?
The state's , pointed to the claiming permission was sought from all present, including the owner. Yet Khan's open-court statement painted a darker picture of intimidation, directly challenging the narrative. No formal arguments from the respondents were detailed in the interim order, but the bench's queries underscored scrutiny over police conduct and threats tied to judicial proceedings.
Bench Probes Deeper, Prioritizes Safety
Without citing specific precedents, the court focused on immediate risks, treating Khan's claims of threats and forced documentation as credible enough for protection. The order holds the state accountable for any harm, rebuttable only through evidence—a bold stance echoing broader concerns over witness intimidation in sensitive religious freedom cases.
Key Observations
-
Khan's Testimony
:
"उस दिन मैं नमाज अपने घर में पढ़ रहा था, मेरे परिवार वाले भी पढ़ रहे थे और उठा कर पुलिस ले गयी और चालान कर दिया, बाद में आरिफ प्रधान और मुख्तयार मुझसे मिले और मुझसे कहा गया कि अगर कोर्ट में मेरे मुताबिक नहीं बोलोगे तो तेरे घर में बुलडोजर चल जाएगा... पुलिस वालों ने मुझे चारों ओर से घेरकर मुझसे एक लिखित कागजात पर अंगूठा लगवाया लिया गया जिस पर कुछ लिखा हुआ था मैं पढ़ नहीं सका क्योंकि मैं अनपढ़ हूँ।"
(Recorded in open court, para 3)
-
Permission Query
:
"On a pointed query... whether permission was sought... he has specifically relied upon the
and read out that the permission was actually sought from all the persons present in the house including that of the owner."
(Para 4)
-
Protection Directive
:
"This Court directs that two armed guards 24/7 shall protect Haseen Khan till this Court decides otherwise. The said guards shall accompany him wherever he goes."
(Para 7)
-
State Liability
:
"Any incident of violence that afflicts Hassen Khan's person or his property shall be
understood to have at the instance of the State, which of course is open to rebuttal."
(Para 7)
Safeguards Imposed, Showdown Looms
The court mandated two armed guards to shadow Khan indefinitely, with orders circulated via the for immediate effect. The officials must appear personally on , at 2:00 p.m., facing if absent. Discharge applications by respondents 2 and 3 were noted but unresolved.
This interim ruling reinforces religious freedoms in private spaces while signaling zero tolerance for post-testimony threats. It could set a precedent for swift witness safeguards in high-stakes cases, pressuring authorities to ensure fair proceedings amid communal tensions.
