During the hearing for the September 2025 Bareilly violence, the Allahabad High Court has refused to grant bail to Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC) president Tauqeer Raja Khan, observing that he was the “main conspirator” behind the unrest and had allegedly incited a crowd in the name of Prophet Mohammad despite being aware that the gathering could turn violent.
Rejecting the bail plea, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that communal harmony forms the foundation of a democratic nation and that individuals who seek to mobilise communities on religious lines for political purposes pose a serious threat to national integrity and public order.
The court further reiterated its earlier observations that slogans such as “Gustakh-e-Nabi ki ek saja, Sar Tan Se Juda” amount to a challenge to the authority of law and have the potential to incite armed rebellion against the State.
Court calls Tauqeer Raja the ‘Main Conspirator’
The High Court’s order came while hearing the bail application of Tauqeer Raja Khan, who has been accused of playing a central role in the violence that erupted in Bareilly in September 2025.
According to the prosecution, the violence was linked to a public meeting held in May 2025, where Khan allegedly urged members of the Muslim community to gather and protest against what he described as atrocities and false cases being registered by the government.
The State alleged that Khan’s call led to the mobilisation of a large crowd of around 200 to 250 people despite prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The crowd allegedly assembled near an Inter College and attempted to march forward in defiance of administrative restrictions.
Mob raised ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ slogans
According to the FIR and the prosecution’s submissions before the court, the situation escalated when police personnel attempted to stop the gathering.
The crowd began raising provocative slogans, including “Sar Tan Se Juda,” along with anti-government slogans.
The prosecution further alleged that members of the mob hurled stones and petrol bombs at police personnel and even opened fire on them.
Several policemen were reportedly injured during the clashes.
Authorities also alleged that public property was extensively damaged during the violence, causing disruption to normal life across parts of Bareilly.
Eyewitness claims Tauqeer Raja encouraged violence
Opposing the bail application, the State relied heavily on the statement of an eyewitness who allegedly heard Khan instructing members of the community to gather at the protest venue “at any cost.”
According to the witness statement cited before the court, Khan allegedly told participants that if necessary they should engage in arson, destroy public property and attack anyone attempting to stop them.
The prosecution further informed the court that after the violence, Khan allegedly circulated a video message thanking members of the Muslim community for carrying out the demonstration.
According to the State, the video included remarks appreciating those involved in damaging public property and ensuring the success of the protest.
These allegations played a significant role in the court’s assessment of Khan’s role in the incident.
Defence says he was not named in FIR
During the hearing, counsel representing Tauqeer Raja argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the case.
The defence pointed out that Khan’s name did not initially appear in the FIR and contended that there was no direct evidence showing that he had instructed the crowd to indulge in violence, arson or attacks on law enforcement personnel.
It was also argued that Khan had no knowledge of any alleged plan by members of the gathering to engage in destructive activities.
The defence maintained that criminal liability could not be imposed merely because a public meeting had been organised.
Court holds him liable for actions of the mob
After examining the allegations and evidence placed before it, the High Court rejected the defence arguments and held that Khan could not escape responsibility for the actions of the crowd.
Justice Deshwal observed that if the allegations contained in the prosecution case were accepted at face value, Khan was the principal figure responsible for mobilising and provoking the gathering.
The court held that he would be vicariously liable for offences committed by the mob and could be treated as the main conspirator under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The court said the applicant could not be absolved of liability merely because he was not physically present during every act allegedly committed by members of the crowd.
‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ slogans against sovereignty of India
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment was the court’s reliance on its earlier ruling in Rihan v State of Uttar Pradesh.
Referring to that decision, the court reiterated that slogans such as:
“Gustakh-e-Nabi ki ek saja, Sar Tan Se Juda, Sar Tan Se Juda”
cannot be treated as ordinary expressions of protest.
The High Court observed that such slogans encourage vigilantism, challenge the authority of law and amount to a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The bench noted that such slogans promote the idea of taking law into private hands and incite people towards violent rebellion.
The court further observed that the slogan has no basis in the Quran and is contrary to the core teachings of Islam.
According to the earlier ruling, such conduct attracts provisions of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with acts that threaten the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Communal harmony cannot be sacrificed
In a strongly worded observation, the High Court stressed the importance of maintaining communal harmony in a diverse society like India.
“Communal harmony forms the bedrock of a democratic nation such as India. Permitting individuals like the applicant to incite divisions on religious grounds for political gain threatens to unravel the social fabric of the country and poses a serious risk to national integrity,” the court observed.
The bench underscored that constitutional freedoms cannot be used as a shield for activities that endanger public peace and social cohesion.
Criminal history weighed against bail
Apart from the allegations relating to the Bareilly violence, the High Court also took note of Tauqeer Raja’s criminal antecedents.
The court observed that Khan possessed an extensive criminal history and that there was a significant possibility of him influencing public order if released from custody.
Justice Deshwal stated that there existed a genuine risk that the applicant could once again incite a particular community and disturb peace and harmony.
Given the gravity of allegations, the nature of evidence, and the potential impact on law and order, the court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
Personal liberty cannot override national integrity
While acknowledging the importance of personal liberty under the Constitution, the court held that individual freedom cannot take precedence over the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
The bench observed that where allegations involve incitement of communal violence, attacks on police personnel and threats to public order, courts must balance individual rights against larger societal interests.
Finding no grounds to grant relief, the Allahabad High Court dismissed Tauqeer Raja Khan’s bail application, ensuring that he will continue to remain in custody while the trial proceeds in connection with the September 2025 Bareilly violence case.
