The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to quash the FIR registered against ‘Mohammad Deepak’, a gym owner from Kotdwar. Additionally, a gag order has been issued against him.
उत्तराखंड HC ने कोटद्वार के ‘मोहम्मद दीपक’ पर दर्ज FIR को रद्द करने से किया इनकार, कोर्ट से बाहर कुछ भी बोलने, सोशल मीडिया पोस्ट का हक़ भी छीना
On Friday (March 20, 2026), the Uttarakhand High Court refused to quash the FIR registered against Deepak Kumar, a gym owner based in Kotdwar. Deepak Kumar garnered national attention when he confronted a group of right-wing activists on January 26; the activists were accused of harassing a 71-year-old Muslim shopkeeper and pressuring him to change the name of his shop.
What is a Gag Order?
A gag order is a legal restriction often imposed on individuals facing charges. Simply put, it means that a person with a pending case in court is prohibited from making any public statements regarding that specific case outside of the courtroom.
Deepak from Kotdwar had given several interviews regarding this matter and had even met with Rahul Gandhi. However, he will no longer be able to do so, as the High Court has now issued a gag order against him.
Subsequently, a video of this altercation went viral—particularly the moment when he identified himself by declaring, “My name is Mohammad Deepak.”
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal also directed Mr. Kumar to refrain from posting any statements or videos on social media that could potentially influence the ongoing investigation.
Following this incident, Mr. Kumar complained of receiving threats, and on January 31, a group staged a protest outside his gym. The police registered three FIRs in connection with this matter, one of which was filed against Mr. Kumar himself. While Mr. Kumar received support from across the country in the wake of this event, he stated that his business suffered losses due to a decline in gym memberships following his intervention.
Relief Sought
In his petition filed before the High Court, Mr. Kumar sought several forms of relief, including the quashing of the FIR registered against him—which alleged charges of rioting and disturbing public order—based on a complaint filed by members of a right-wing group. Citing threats to his life, he also sought police protection, the registration of FIRs against those delivering “hate speech,” and a departmental inquiry against police officials for their alleged “biased conduct.” Opposing this petition, the State alleged that significant facts had been concealed and pointed out that an FIR had already been registered regarding the petitioner’s grievances. The State further submitted that adequate security cover had been provided to the petitioner, yet he failed to cooperate with the investigation while continuing to post on social media.
The Court observed that he was ‘excessively active’ online.
In its oral observations, the Court reprimanded Mr. Kumar for being “excessively active” on social media, stating that he appeared to be attempting to sensationalize the matter and influence the investigation. The Court remarked, “You are preaching on social media. Once you have provided the necessary information, you should let the police do their job.”
The Court also took note of the State’s contention that Mr. Kumar had failed to disclose that he had been provided with police protection for a period exceeding one month. The Court asked, “Why did you not apprise us of the fact that you were provided with security cover from February 3 to March 13?”
The Court also placed on record the State’s submission that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation, adding that any individual falling within the ambit of an investigation ought to cooperate with the authorities and repose faith in the investigative process.
Seek Counseling to Alleviate Stress
Mr. Kumar’s counsel, Navneesh Negi, argued that his client had made efforts to de-escalate the situation and that the viral video in question had been circulated by others. He further contended that, despite the alleged assailants having been identified, the police had proceeded to register a case against Mr. Kumar instead. He added that his client had not been informed that an FIR had been registered pursuant to his complaint.
Responding to the objection raised by the State regarding the petitioner’s social media activity, the counsel argued: “Nowadays, everyone is on social media. What exactly is unlawful about that? Has anything unconstitutional been stated?” In response, the State submitted that although Mr. Kumar claimed to be aware of the developments unfolding in Haridwar and Dehradun, he expressed ignorance regarding an FIR registered at a police station situated near his gym.
Declining to intervene at this stage, the Court directed the investigating agency to proceed strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar.
Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the police to ensure a fair investigation and reiterated that the petitioner must refrain from any conduct—including social media activity—that could impede the investigation.
Follow Us on… 
+