Opening The Rift
therift
© 2026 The Rift. All Rights Reserved.
Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Application Of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, sending a clear message against provocative slogans challenging India’s sovereignty.
Key Takeaways
1 of 3
Automatically generated. Read full article for complete context.
While demonstrating zero tolerance for provocative slogans like “Gustakh-e-Nabi Ki Ek Hi Saza, Sar Tan Se Juda” (there is only one punishment for someone who insults the Prophet: beheading) which tantamounts to a challenge to the authority of law and the sovereignty and integrity of India, we see that the Allahabad High Court in a most enlightening, erudite, exemplary and effective judgment titled Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan Vs State of UP in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 2637 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:185783 that was pronounced just very recently on September 7, 2026 has denied bail to an Islamic cleric Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan who is President of the Ittehad e Millat Council (IMC), in connection with the Bareilly riots of which he is accused of being the key conspirator behind the September 2025 Bareilly violence which included attacks on police personnel, destruction of public property and raising provocative slogans like “Sar Tan Se Juda” during a prohibited assembly, holding explicitly that his call for a large public gathering without administrative permission, and his subsequent conduct thanking the crowd for responding to that call could not be approved of, even though he was not physically present at the spot where the violence occurred. The row started over the posters of ‘I love Mohammed’. It must be noted that the protest was held against alleged atrocities and filing of allegedly false cases against Muslims by the state government.
At the very outset, this landmark judgment, authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, states in its opening paragraph that, sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that, “Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Seshadari Trivedi, learned counsel as also Sri Imran Ullah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Imdad Siddiqui, learned counsels appearing for the applicant, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Paritosh Malviya and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State Respondents and perused the records.”
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in the next para disclosing that, “The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSSBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023One of the three new criminal codes enacted in India in 2023, replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It governs criminal offenses and their punishments. on behalf of the applicant Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail of the applicant in Case Crime No. 489 of 2025 under 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), 62 of BNS, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment ActIndian LegislationA series of acts in India aimed at amending and strengthening criminal laws, often in response to specific social or political challenges. and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property ActIndian LegislationAn Indian law enacted to provide for the prevention of damage to public property and for matters connected therewith., Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Trial Court has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bareilly, vide order dated 10.11.2025 and the applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 27.09.2025.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in the next para that, “Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the applicant have vehemently submitted that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case crime number for ulterior motives and political purposes and no case, as alleged in the FIR, is made out against the applicant. is made out against the applicant. It is contended that the FIR giving rise to the case crime number in question was lodged nominating the applicant as President of IMC (Ittehad-e-Millat Council) besides 24 other named and about 1700 unknown persons with the allegation that the applicant, who is the President of the above-mentioned Association had given a Call in a Public Meeting held on 19.09.2025 persuading the Members of the Muslim Community to assemble in the ground of Islamia Inter College for the protest against the atrocities being faced by the Muslim Community as well as lodging of false cases against them by the State Government. The local Administration on getting knowledge of such assembly on 25.09.2025 issued an order under Section 163 of the BNSS, 2023Prohibition of AssemblyA provision within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) that empowers executive magistrates to issue orders prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons in a public place, often to maintain public order. in Bareilly prohibiting the assembly of 5 or more persons at a public place. Despite the above around 200-250 persons marched towards Islamia Inter College in response to the Call of the applicant and when the Police tried to stop them they started making incitements “Gustakh-eNabi Ki Ek Hi Saza, Sar Tan Se Juda, Sar Tan Se Juda” as well as started raising slogans against the Government, started pelting stones and petrol bombs on the Police Party and also started firing upon the Police Party resulting in injuries being suffered by several Police Personnel. Public property was also destroyed in the incident. When the Police started to control the crowd by using force, the crowd started running away from the spot. The whole incident took the shape of a riot against the State disrupting the normal peace and tranquility in the City of Bareilly. The incident left a large quantity of stones, bricks, etc., strewn all over the streets, along with broken police barricades. Recoveries of 2 fired 12 bore cartridge, 1 live cartridge 315 bore, Country Made Pistol 12 bore, illegal sharp knives, sticks and rods, glass bottles broken shoes and slippers were made from the spot.”
As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in the next para that, “Learned counsels for the applicant while pressing the bail plea of the applicant submit that the applicant is the founder and principal leader of Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC) which is a social organization established with the object of representing social educational and political concerns of minorities. The IMC has functioned as a structured political platform, contesting elections. It is submitted that on account of his long association with IMC the applicant has acquired the status of an influential public figure and on account of his political influence the applicant has been a soft target. Learned counsels for the applicant argue that the incident that took place on 26.09.2025 cannot be denied but the applicant was not involved in it’s mobilization or participation. It is argued that on 25.09.2025 the IMC Spokespersons; Liaqat Khan, Nadeem Khan and Nafeez Khan called for a gathering at the Islamia Inter College grounds on 26th September, 2025 during the Zuma Namaz and to submit a Memorandum to the President. Due to the Administration’s refusal to grant permission, a withdrawal letter was issued claiming that the previous letter was fraudulent. The applicant made his video and circulated it on Social Media, calling the IMC’s Letter of 25.09.2025 fraudulent and again calling on the public to gather at Naumahal. It is submitted that the Police and the Administration tried to dissuade them from the Call but the frenzied crowd gathered in response and the untoward incident occurred.”
Most significantly and most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “I have heard the respective counsels for the parties and have perused the records. Perusal of the record reveals that the applicant was not present on the place of the incident and was confined at the house of the co-accused Farhat Ali. The records further reveal that the applicant had admittedly to satisfy his religious and his private political interests, taking the opportunity of the Friday Namaz required the masses of the Muslim Community to assemble on the grounds of Islamia Inter College after the Namaz to protest against the Government action on the Muslim Community and submit a Memorandum to the President of India through the District Magistrate, Bareilly. The Call was made without seeking permission from the local administration for such a large assembly. The applicant has tried to justify that the call to assemble at the grounds of Islamia Inter College had been cancelled in the wake of the permission having been denied and imposition of Section 163 of the BNSS but the fact remains that the masses of the Muslim Community did undertake the march to the Islamia Grounds and when the same was prevented by the Police Personnel who were merely performing their duties to maintain the law and order were man-handled by the crowd which indulged in rioting, destruction of public property resulting in injuries to Police Personnel which acts cannot be approved of. The conduct of the applicant after the incident by giving a speech thanking the masses for responding to the Call in large numbers and applauding their acts cannot also be approved of. The Court also finds force in the submission of Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General for the State to the effect that the slogan “Gustakh-e-Nabi Ki Ek Hi Saza, Sar Tan Se Juda, Sar Tan Se Juda” is nothing but a challenge to the authority of law as also to the sovereignty and integrity of India and incites the people for an arm rebellion which is punishable under the law. The said slogan cannot be equated to other slogans like “Nara-e-Takbir, AllahuAkbar” “Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal”, or for that matter “Jai Shri Ram” or “Har Har Mahadev”, which are slogans expressing respect to the concerned God or Guru. The Court further finds that though the charge sheet against the applicant has been filed on 21.12.2025 the charges against the applicant is yet to be filed.”
Resultantly, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in the final para that, “Considering all the above, the Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. Consequently, the bail application is rejected.”
In conclusion, while one has to concede that the rejection of bail is definitely a big setback for Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan by the Allahabad High Court but he still has the option to seek bail and argue more effectively that he never gave his stamp of approval to provocative slogans before the Division Bench and then the Supreme Court. and then to Supreme CourtHighest Judicial Court of IndiaThe apex judicial body in India, with ultimate appellate jurisdiction and the power of judicial review.. But if he and his lawyers fail to justify his actions then bail could be definitely next to impossible as we see in this leading case! It thus merits just no reiteration that this bold judgment has sent a very clear and loud message to all that those who encourage provocative slogans will have to land behind bars and bail would not be so easy to secure!
Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Rift.
*Indian JudiciaryAllahabad High CourtBail ApplicationBareilly RiotsBharatiya Nyaya SanhitaMaulana Tauqeer Raza KhanProvocative SlogansPublic Order
