Supreme Court stays case against Uttarakhand gym owner "Mohammad" Deepak Kumar

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a criminal case filed against Uttarakhand-based gym owner Deepak Kumar ("Mohammad" Deepak) on a complaint by right-wing activists after he confronted them for harassing a Muslim shopkeeper over the name of a shop in January this year.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order on a plea filed by Kumar.

Kumar's plea challenges the Uttarakhand High Court's refusal to quash the case as well as a directive restraining Kumar from speaking about the matter on social media.

“Issue notice. In the meantime, proceedings from the impugned FIR and effect and operation of the high court order to remain stayed,” the Bench said.

The top court has also sought the Uttarakhand government's response in the matter.

In March this year, the Uttarakhand High Court refused to quash the first information report (FIR) filed against Kumar on a complaint by right-wing activists.

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.

A complaint was later filed by right-wing activists accusing Kumar of intimidating them and verbally abusing them.

The criminal case filed on this complaint accused Kumar of committing offences under Sections 115(2) (causing hurt), 191(1) (rioting), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Kumar eventually challenged the January 31, 2026 FIR against him before the High Court.

The High Court, in March 2026, refused to quash the case and allowed the police investigation to continue. It passed the order after recording the State Police's assurance that it would 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 judge, at the time, further noted that Kumar's complaint in the matter is being investigated as well. The police said that two FIRs had been registered on Kumar's complaint, rendering his prayer for the registration of FIRs infructuous.

Notably, the High Court also restrained Kumar from commenting on incidents related to the case on social media, over concerns that it could hamper the ongoing police probe.

The Court passed this directive after taking critical note of the State's claim that Kumar had been "busy on social media" instead of cooperating with the investigation.

It, therefore, restrained Kumar from "sending any message or video on social media" on the January incidents, despite vehement objections from his counsel.

"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.

The High Court dismissed Kumar's prayers for protection from threats and a departmental inquiry against certain police officers for allegedly biased conduct as well. The Court, at the time, recorded the State's assurance that Deepak Kumar was given police protection from threats. It further expressed faith in the police's assurance that the entire matter would be fairly investigated.

This High Court ruling has now been challenged by Kumar before the Supreme Court.

"In my quashing (plea), a blanket gag order is passed," submitted Senior Advocate AM Singhvi today, representing Kumar.