The Allahabad High Court has officially denied bail to Tauqeer Raja Khan, who stands accused of being the key conspirator behind the severe outbreak of violence that shook Bareilly in September 2025. The legal proceedings involve serious allegations of public incitement, targeted attacks on police personnel, the extensive destruction of public property, and the raising of highly controversial religious slogans during an assembly that had been strictly prohibited by local authorities.

The Prosecution's Case and the Outbreak of Unrest

According to the formal case presented by the prosecution, Tauqeer Raja Khan, who serves as the head of the Ittefaq Minnat Council (INC), had actively called upon members of the Muslim community to gather in large numbers. His objective was to stage a public demonstration protesting against what he alleged were atrocities and false legal cases being registered against Muslims.

In response to the rising tensions and to maintain public order, the local administration had subsequently imposed prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the earlier Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), effectively banning all unlawful assemblies in the area.

Despite these clear legal restrictions and law enforcement warnings, a large crowd consisting of approximately 200 to 250 people allegedly marched forward, heading toward the Islamia Inter College. The First Information Report (FIR) registered by the authorities claims that the moment police personnel attempted to intercept and stop the march, the situation escalated rapidly.

Members of the crowd allegedly raised "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogans, pelted stones at the officers, hurled petrol bombs, and went so far as to open fire on the police line. In the ensuing chaos, several police personnel sustained physical injuries, and extensive damage was inflicted upon public property.

Judicial Findings on the Conspiracy and Mobilization

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the definitive order while rejecting Khan's bail plea altogether. When assessing the primary evidence, the Court held that the material placed before it prima facie showed that Khan had persuaded and provoked members of the Muslim community to assemble despite prohibitory orders and was aware that violence could erupt if the crowd was stopped by police.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that eyewitness statements and video clips indicated that Khan was the "main person" behind the mobilisation of the crowd and could not escape liability for offences allegedly committed by the gathering, including arson, attacks on police personnel and destruction of public property.

During the arguments, the defense counsel attempted to clear Khan by highlighting that he was not explicitly named in the initial FIR and had not personally or physically participated in the street violence. However, the High Court completely rejected this line of defense. The Court recorded that it was undisputed that Khan had persuaded members of the Muslim community to assemble for a demonstration. It further noted that the crowd later became involved in rioting, arson, attacks on police personnel and destruction of public property.

The Court observed that eyewitness statements and video evidence suggested that Khan had delivered provocative speeches and was aware that a "highly emotional and volatile crowd" incited in the name of Prophet Mohammad could resort to violence if restrained by police. In the court's view, this made him liable as a principal conspirator for offences allegedly committed by the crowd. Consequently, the judiciary affirmed that he could not be absolved of responsibility merely because the offences were physically committed by others.

Legal Precedents and Threat to National Integrity

In delivering its judgment, the High Court leaned heavily on established legal precedents regarding public safety and hate speech. The bench referred directly to its earlier judicial order in the case of Rihan v. State of U.P., where it had previously held that slogans such as "gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda" amount to a challenge to the authority of law and can incite armed rebellion. Quoting directly from that past order, the court noted that such slogans threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India and are contrary even to the basic tenets of Islam.

Addressing the broader societal impact of the case, the High Court stated that communal harmony forms the foundation of India's democratic framework and warned that individuals who incite divisions on religious lines for political purposes pose a threat to the country's social fabric and national integrity.

To reinforce this stance, the bench relied on a recent landmark Supreme Court decision, State of Punjab Vs. Balraj Singh @Billa (2026), observing that a person's personal liberty cannot prevail over the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Ultimately, noting that Khan allegedly persuaded people on multiple occasions to gather "at any cost" and considering his documented criminal history in similar past cases, the court held that there was a significant possibility that he could again incite a section of the community and disturb peace and harmony if released. On that explicit basis, the Allahabad High Court rejected his bail application.

Official Legal Record

• Case Title: Tauqeer Raja Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
• Order Date: June 5, 2026
• Presiding Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal