RIHAN V. STATE OF U.P. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. - 43604 OF 2025:

DATE: 17/12/2025

COURT: High Court of Allahabad

BENCH: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

FACTS:

The case stems from an incident in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, where Maulana Taukir Raza, President of the Ittefaq Minnat Council (IMC), called for members of the Muslim community to assemble at the Islamia Inter College grounds on September 26, 2025, to protest alleged state atrocities and false cases against Muslim youth. Despite police warnings and the enforcement of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) prohibiting gatherings of more than five people, IMC leader Nadeem Khan allegedly incited crowds near his residence in Biharipur. A group of approximately 500 people gathered, raising slogans against the government and chanting "gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda." When police attempted to disperse them, the crowd reportedly attacked with stones, petrol bombs, and gunfire, resulting in injuries to several officers and damage to police and private vehicles. Seven individuals, including the applicant, were arrested at the scene, and based on their statements, CCTV footage, and witness identifications, an FIR was lodged against 25 named and 1,700 unknown persons under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

The applicant, implicated in the FIR, filed a bail application claiming false arrest from his home rather than the spot, no prior criminal history, and lack of incriminating evidence. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing that the applicant's involvement in the unlawful assembly promoted enmity between religious groups, challenged India's sovereignty through the objectionable slogan, and involved acts of violence against the state, constituting serious offenses against national integrity and public order.

ISSUES:

The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted bail during the pendency of the trial in a case involving allegations of inciting an unlawful assembly, raising slogans that promoted religious enmity and challenged India's legal sovereignty, and participating in violent acts against police and public property, in violation of multiple BNS sections including those related to sedition, rioting, and damage to property.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The court reasoned that the slogan "gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda," chanted by the crowd, inherently challenges the Indian legal framework by advocating extrajudicial beheading for perceived blasphemy, which contravenes BNS provisions under Chapter XVI (offenses relating to religion) such as Sections 298, 299, and 302, which provide measured punishments for insulting religion or wounding religious feelings, and Section 196, which penalizes promoting enmity between groups on religious grounds. Emphasizing that BNS adequately addresses blasphemy and religious disharmony with imprisonment terms up to five years, the court viewed the slogan as an incitement to armed rebellion and a threat to national integrity, punishable under Section 152 BNS, as it undermines the Constitution's democratic principles, including freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The court traced the slogan's origins to post-1947 developments in Pakistan's blasphemy laws and its misuse in India to intimidate other religions and defy state authority, contrasting it with non-violent religious proclamations in Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism, and citing Prophet Mohammad's examples of kindness over retribution to argue that such violent expressions disrespect Islamic tenets and foster enmity rather than harmony.

Furthermore, applying this to the facts, the court noted undisputed evidence from the case diary, including the applicant's arrest at the scene alongside six others, witness statements, and CCTV footage linking him to the unlawful assembly of over 500 people instigated by Maulana Taukir Raza and Nadeem Khan. Despite prohibitions under Section 163 BNSS, the crowd's actions raising anti-state and objectionable slogans, followed by stone-pelting, petrol bombs, and firing caused injuries to police and property damage, constituting offenses against the state that promote disharmony and challenge sovereignty. The court dismissed the applicant's claims of false implication, prioritizing the severity of the acts as threats to public tranquility and national unity, thus justifying bail denial to uphold the rule of law.

ANALYSIS:

The case highlights a critical intersection of religious expression, public order, and state sovereignty in contemporary India, where a protest call by Maulana Taukir Raza and Nadeem Khan escalated into violence, leading to the applicant's bail denial. The court's decision underscores the judiciary's stringent stance on slogans perceived as threats to national integrity, such as "gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda," which it deemed an incitement to extrajudicial violence incompatible with India's secular legal framework. By invoking Sections 298, 299, 302, and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for religious offenses and Section 152 for challenging sovereignty, the ruling reflects a broader judicial effort to curb communal disharmony amid rising polarization. However, this approach raises concerns about overreach in interpreting free speech under Article 19(1)(a), as the slogan, rooted in Pakistani blasphemy laws, was criminalized not for its utterance alone but for its contextual role in an unlawful assembly that defied Section 163 BNSS prohibitions and resulted in real-world harm, including injuries and property damage.

In rejecting bail, the Allahabad High Court prioritized empirical evidence from the case diary, CCTV footage, and witness accounts over the applicant's claims of false arrest and clean record, emphasizing that his presence at the scene implicated him in acts against the state. This judgment reinforces the principle that bail is not a right in serious offenses involving public violence and sedition-like elements, particularly when they allegedly promote enmity and undermine constitutional harmony. Yet, it also invites scrutiny on potential biases in handling religious protests, as the court's detailed exegesis on Islamic teachings and historical blasphemy laws suggests a normative judgment on faith expressions, potentially chilling legitimate dissent. Overall, the ruling serves as a deterrent against mob violence disguised as religious assertion but risks exacerbating communal tensions if not balanced with safeguards for minority rights and fair investigation.