The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday restrained gym owner Deepak Kumar ("Mohammad" Deepak) from commenting on social media regarding cases filed over an incident from January where he confronted right-wing activists seen harassing a Muslim shopkeeper over the name of his shop.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal reasoned that social media commentary would only hamper the ongoing police investigation in the matter. The Bench took critical note of the State's claim that Kumar has not been cooperating with the investigation and has, instead, been "busy on social media".

"The petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation and not to indulge unnecessarily on social media platforms so that investigation is not affected. He is citizen of this country and he should abide by the law. Being citizen of India, he has to cooperate with investigation by hoping and trust that investigation will be conducted in fair and transparent manner," the Court said in the order.

The Court refused to allow Kumar's plea to quash the criminal case lodged against Kumar on a complaint by right-wing activists. Instead, it recorded the State Police's assurance that it will follow the Supreme Court's guidelines on safeguards to be followed while investigating an offence that carries a prison term of up to seven years.

The Court also directed the police to go ahead with the investigation.

"Certainly, the petitioner has a right to challenge the impugned FIR since he is facing investigation, but as pointed out by the State, all the offences are punishable with less than seven year sentence and therefore investigating agency is under legal obligation to follow Supreme Court guidelines... The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the investigating agency to go on with the investigation but while conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer shall follow the guidelines formulated by the apex court in the case of Arnesh Kumar and will issue a notice to the persons concerned...," the Court ordered.

The matter is tied to a January 26 incident, where Kumar objected to right-wing activists insisting that an elderly Muslim shopkeeper remove the word "Baba" from his shop since the term had a Hindu connotation.

When asked what his name was, Kumar responded that he was "Mohammad" Deepak though his actual name is Deepak Kumar.

Kumar recently approached the High Court with a plea to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him on a complaint by the right-wing activists he confronted, among other prayers.

The Court today asked Kumar and others to cooperate with the police probe and "not to create any problem" including by sending messages or videos regarding the January 26 incident.

"The petitioners and other persons have to cooperate with investigation agency and not create any problem. The petitioners should not indulge by sending messages or videos with regard to the incident. This is essential for fair investigation. If somebody sends messages and videos on social media, this will certainly affect investigation. This Court cannot permit any such activity," the Court observed.

This directive against commenting on the incident online drew protest from Kumar's counsel.

"She [State counsel] should quote a single message that breaches law and order or is unconstitutional," Kumar's counsel said.

Earlier in the hearing, the Court had observed,

"When such incidents happen, the police has to first maintain law and order. Don’t (sensationalise). I am stopping you from making any statement on social media. It is my strict direction."

In response, Kumar's counsel objected,

"Everybody is on social media. What illegal (act) have I done? Have I said anything unconstitutional? It is not a crime."

The Court further dismissed Kumar's prayers for protection from threats and a departmental inquiry against police officers who were allegedly acting in a biased manner.

"The petitioners are under investigation and in such circumstances, he (Kumar) cannot pray for police protection. There is no question of creating a doubt on the investigating agency. He has to hope and trust that his life will be protected. Still, he can approach the competent officer (of the police, if required, for protection)," the Court said in its order.

The Court recorded the State's assurance that Deepak Kumar was given police protection from threats, and expressed faith in the police's assurance that the entire matter would be fairly investigated.

"No doubt the incident which happened on January 26 and January 31 was really an unfortunate incident and that requires thorough investigation. This Court hopes and trusts that police will conduct fair and transparent probe and will also maintain law and order," the Court said.

The Court proceeded to term Kumar's prayer for a departmental inquiry against certain cops as "wholly unwarranted" at this stage before dismissing it. It opined that a person facing investigation cannot pray for departmental enquiry against the police officers.

"This will not only affect the ongoing investigation but also affect the morale of the investigating agency," the Court said.

Advocate Navnish Negi, representing Kumar, had yesterday argued that his client was only trying to de-escalate a tense situation on January 26. He added that Kumar has been receiving consistent threats.

However, the Court observed that the police have the legal obligation to safeguard Kumar's life and liberty. The Court also took note of the State's submission that there was no threat perception against Kumar.

The Court yesterday also questioned how Kumar could seek protection from the police when he stood accused in a criminal case, criticised him for sensationalising the issue and told him to trust the police.

During today's hearing, the Court again criticised Kumar for his comments on social media.

"Who is pressurising you? You are sensationalising the matter on social media. Police has to maintain law and order also, aap pravachan de rahe ho social media pe (translation: you are giving lectures on social media)," the judge remarked.

Kumar's counsel replied that it was not his client who first publicised the issue.

"The video did not go viral from my phone but from the accused's phone. Ab donu side k loug active hai. Hamare gym k saamne hua (translation: both sides are active, all this happened in front of my client's gym)", he said.

The judge, however, pointed out that Kumar's complaint in the matter is also being investigated by the police.

The police said that two FIRs have been registered on Kumar's complaint, rendering his prayer for the registration of FIRs infructuous. This was also recorded in the Court's order today.

[Live Coverage]