Back
denies bail to Tauqeer Raza Khan, ‘sar tan se juda’ not religious
Bareilly violence accused stays in custody as court distinguishes slogan from religious chants
The on Monday rejected the of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, the founder of the , observing that the slogan
"Gustakh-e-Nabi Ki Ek Hi Saja, Sar Tan Se Juda, Sar Tan Se Juda"
constitutes a challenge to India’s sovereignty and cannot be compared with traditional religious exclamations such as
"Allahu Akbar"
,
"Jai Shri Ram"
or
"Sat Sri Akal"
.
Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, presiding over the , dismissed the plea filed under for offences ranging from rioting and unlawful assembly to attempted murder and damage to public property. The applicant has been lodged in jail since .
A call that turned violent
The case stems from a public gathering on , at Bareilly’s Islamia Inter College grounds. The IMC had called for the assembly after Friday prayers to protest alleged atrocities against the Muslim community and to submit a memorandum to the President of India through the District Magistrate. The local administration, anticipating trouble, had imposed prohibitory orders under , banning the assembly of five or more persons.
Despite the ban, around 200-250 people marched towards the venue, raising provocative slogans. When police attempted to stop the crowd, the demonstrators allegedly pelted stones and petrol bombs, opened fire, and assaulted officers, injuring several personnel. Large quantities of sharp-edged weapons, crude bombs, and fired cartridges were recovered from the spot.
Arguments over the applicant’s role
Senior counsels for Khan argued that he was not present at the scene and had been placed under house arrest on the day of the incident. They claimed that the call for assembly had been withdrawn after the administration denied permission, and that a video statement had been circulated urging the public not to gather. They further submitted that the applicant had no direct role in the violence and that his 12 prior criminal cases were adequately explained.
The State, represented by Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General , countered that Khan was the “” of the riots. The prosecution pointed to a meeting on , where the same slogan was raised, and a video broadcast from the house of co-accused Farhat Ali on the day of the violence, in which Khan thanked the crowd for their response. The State highlighted that Khan had 24 criminal antecedents and that had already been filed in three related cases.
The court’s reasoning
Justice Srivastava carefully examined the nature of the slogan that had become the rallying cry of the protest. The court expressly rejected the defence’s attempt to equate it with religious expressions, stating:
“The said slogan cannot be equated to other slogans like ‘Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu-Akbar’, ‘Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal’, or for that matter ‘Jai Shri Ram’ or ‘Har Har Mahadev’, which are slogans expressing respect to the concerned God or Guru.”
The judge further agreed with the State’s submission that the slogan was “nothing but a challenge to the authority of law as also to the and incites the people for an which is punishable under the law.” The court also disapproved of Khan’s post-incident conduct, noting that he delivered a speech applauding the mob’s actions.
While acknowledging that Khan was not physically present at the riot site, the court held that his —through the original call to assemble and the subsequent thank-you video—rendered him culpable. The court noted that charges against the applicant were yet to be framed, but considering the gravity of the allegations and the potential for further breach of , bail was not warranted.
Implications of the ruling
The rejection of bail keeps Tauqeer Raza Khan in as the trial proceeds. The high court’s clear distinction between politically charged slogans and religious chants provides legal clarity on the boundaries of free expression during protests. The judgment underscores that words capable of inciting violence or challenging state authority will be treated seriously by the courts, regardless of the speaker’s absence from the physical scene of the crime.
With the already filed on , the case now moves to before the trial court in Bareilly.
