With far-reaching legal and constitutional implications, a ruling by the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a bail application in connection with the Bareilly violence case, observing that the slogan “Gustakh-e-Nabi ki ek saza, sar tan se juda” amounts to an open challenge to the authority of law, the sovereignty and integrity of Bharat, and incitement to armed rebellion.
The order was passed on December 17, 2025, by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while hearing a bail application filed in Case Crime No. 489 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly. The application sought the release of the accused, Mohammad Rihan during the pendency of the trial in a case involving a large-scale unlawful assembly, violent clashes with police, arson, firing, and damage to public and private property.
Offences invoked in the FIR
The bail application pertained to serious offences registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 109(1), 109(2), 118(2), 121(1), 189(5), 191(2), 191(3), 195(1), 196(1), 196(2), 223, 310(2), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2) and 62, along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
Prosecution’s version: Call for protest and violation of prohibitory orders
According to the prosecution, the FIR was lodged on May 26, 2025, following intelligence inputs and ground events that unfolded over the preceding days. The police alleged that Maulana Taukir Raza, President of the Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IEMC), had issued a call to members of the Muslim community to assemble at the grounds of Islamia Inter College, Bareilly, to stage a protest against the State, alleging atrocities and the lodging of false criminal cases against Muslim youth.
The Court noted that police had already received information on May 25, 2025, that Maulana Taukir Raza and another IEMC leader, Nadeem Khan, were actively inciting people to gather after the conclusion of namaz on May 26, 2025. Anticipating law and order issues, the administration imposed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), prohibiting the assembly of more than five persons in Bareilly district.
Despite these restrictions, the prosecution alleged that the organisers went ahead with their plan.
Assembly turns violent
As per the case diary, the first informant, posted near the residence of IEMC leader Nadeem Khan in the Biharipur area under Kotwali police station, noticed that Nadeem Khan instigated people to come out of their houses and proceed towards Islamia Inter College. A crowd soon emerged from his residence, after which Nadeem Khan allegedly left the spot to mobilise people from other locations.
Soon thereafter, a crowd of approximately 500 people assembled in Biharipur. The gathering allegedly raised slogans against the State and repeatedly chanted the provocative slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saza, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda.”
When police personnel attempted to stop the procession and disperse the unlawful assembly, the situation escalated rapidly. The mob allegedly snatched batons from policemen, tore their uniforms, and, upon resistance by law enforcement, began pelting stones, throwing petrol bombs and firing weapons.
The violence resulted in injuries to several police personnel and extensive damage to police vehicles as well as private property. On the spot, seven persons, including the present applicant, were arrested.
Based on statements of those arrested at the scene, as well as subsequent identification, the police registered the FIR against 25 named accused and approximately 1,700 unidentified persons. The names of the principal accused, including Maulana Taukir Raza and Nadeem Khan, surfaced during the investigation.
The police later arrested other named accused and identified additional persons through statements of co-accused, independent witnesses, and CCTV footage, the prosecution told the Court.
Defence argument: False implication
Arguing for bail, counsel for the applicant claimed that the accused had been falsely implicated and was not present at the scene. It was submitted that the applicant was allegedly arrested from his home, contrary to the police version that he was apprehended at the spot.
The defence also argued that the applicant had no prior criminal history and that there was no incriminating material linking him to acts of violence or incitement. On these grounds, the applicant sought release on bail during the pendency of the investigation and trial.
He argued that the materials on record clearly showed the applicant’s participation in the unlawful assembly that openly challenged the authority of the Indian legal system and resorted to violence against police personnel.
Law on blasphemy and religious offences
Before addressing the specific role of the applicant, Justice Deshwal undertook a detailed examination of the legal framework governing religious offences under Indian law.
The Court observed that blasphemy or deliberate acts intended to wound religious feelings are already punishable under Indian law, particularly under Sections 298, 299 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which fall under Chapter XVI, dealing with offences relating to religion.
From a perusal of these provisions, the Court held that Indian criminal law comprehensively addresses situations where individuals disrespect any religion, God, Prophet or Guru, or attempt to promote enmity between religious groups through words, slogans or visible representations.
‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ chant crosses constitutional limits
The Court then made its most significant observation, holding that chanting a slogan that prescribes beheading as punishment for alleged blasphemy goes far beyond religious expression.
“Chanting the slogan ‘gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda’ which provides punishment of beheading for disrespecting the Nabi (Prophet) amounts to challenging the sovereignty and integrity of India and also the Indian legal system,” the Court observed.
Justice Deshwal emphasised that India’s legal system is rooted in constitutional objectives and democratic principles, and punishment for any offence can only be imposed through procedures established by law.
While acknowledging that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression and assembly, the Court underlined that these freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
“Any slogan by a crowd that provides a death sentence contrary to the punishment provided by the BNS or other criminal law is not only against the constitutional object but also a challenge to the lawful authority of the Indian legal system,” the Court said, holding such acts punishable under Section 152 BNS, which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Devotional slogans versus intimidation
Drawing a clear distinction between devotional chants and violent slogans, Justice Deshwal noted that every religion has proclamations meant to express reverence, such as “Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu Akbar” in Islam, “Jo bole so nihaal, Sat Sri Akal” in Sikhism, and Hindu chants like “Jai Shree Ram” and “Har Har Mahadev.”
The Court clarified that such slogans, when raised in a devotional or celebratory context, do not amount to an offence unless they are maliciously used to intimidate or threaten others.
However, the Court observed that the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan has no basis in the Quran or recognised Islamic texts, yet is widely used without understanding its consequences.
Reference to Pakistan’s blasphemy law
In a rare comparative analysis, the Court traced the historical evolution of blasphemy laws, noting that such provisions were first introduced in 1927 by the British government. Post-Partition, Pakistan enacted and later significantly tightened its blasphemy laws, particularly through amendments under General Zia-ul-Haq in 1982 and 1986, introducing provisions mandating life imprisonment or death for alleged blasphemy.
The Court cited the infamous Asia Bibi case (2011) as an example of the misuse and consequences of such laws, implicitly contrasting them with India’s constitutional and legal framework.
Justice Deshwal also referred to incidents from the life of Prophet Mohammad, highlighting acts of forgiveness and compassion, including the well-known incident from Taif, where the Prophet responded to harassment with kindness.
The Court observed that calls for beheading in the name of Islam are not only legally impermissible but also contrary to the Prophet’s teachings.
“If any follower of Islam raises a slogan for beheading any person who disrespects the Nabi, that is nothing but disrespect to the ideals of Prophet Mohammad,” the Court said, adding that violence expressed through words creates enmity rather than reverence for religion.
Final finding and bail rejection
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court held that there was sufficient material to show that the applicant was part of an unlawful assembly that raised objectionable slogans, injured police personnel, and damaged property.
“This is nothing but an offence against the State,” the Court observed, noting that the applicant was arrested from the spot.
Finding no grounds for bail, the Court rejected the application.
“Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected,” Justice Deshwal concluded.
(Copy of the court order can be accessed here).
