Allahabad High Court Denies Bail to Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan in Bareilly Violence Case, Cites Threat to Communal Harmony
By Rajesh Pandey
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has refused to grant bail to Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, who has been identified by investigators as one of the principal accused in the violence that erupted in Bareilly on September 26, 2025.
The Court observed that actions capable of inflaming communal tensions for political purposes pose a serious challenge to public order and national unity.
While rejecting the bail plea, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal underscored the importance of maintaining social cohesion in a diverse democracy like India.
The Court remarked that communal harmony is a foundational pillar of the country’s constitutional framework, and any attempt to exploit religious sentiments for political advantage has the potential to damage the nation’s social fabric and undermine its integrity.
In its order dated June 5, the Court noted that the applicant had allegedly addressed gatherings on two separate occasions and encouraged people to assemble and move toward Islamia Inter College irrespective of restrictions or consequences.
Taking into account the allegations against him, along with his reported criminal history in comparable matters, the Court expressed concern that his release at this stage could potentially lead to further disturbances.
Consequently, the Bench declined to exercise its discretion in favour of granting bail.
The application had been filed seeking the release of the accused during the pendency of trial in Crime No. 1146 of 2025, registered at Baradari Police Station in Bareilly under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The plea was moved before the High Court after a lower court had earlier rejected his request for bail.
According to the prosecution, Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan was identified during the investigation as a key figure behind the events that culminated in large-scale unrest in Bareilly.
As a result, he was named among the accused in the criminal case relating to the violence that took place last year.
The matter has been under judicial consideration alongside several related bail applications filed by other accused persons.
During the hearing, defence counsel Sitaram Yadav argued that his client was not originally named in the First Information Report (FIR) and had been implicated without any concrete evidence establishing that he incited the crowd, encouraged unlawful assembly, or played a direct role in acts of violence, vandalism, or destruction of public property.
The defence further contended that there was no substantive material demonstrating that the applicant had instigated individuals to gather at Islamia Inter College or engage in criminal conduct.
On these grounds, it was argued that continued incarceration was unjustified.
Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan has remained in judicial custody since October 13, 2025, in connection with the Bareilly violence case and sought relief based on his prolonged detention while the trial remains pending.
Opposing the plea, Additional Government Advocate Paritosh Malviya submitted that the allegations against the accused went beyond merely addressing a gathering.
According to the prosecution, he actively encouraged people to congregate at the grounds of Islamia Inter College and allegedly delivered speeches that could be interpreted as provoking members of a particular community to resist any attempts to stop them.
Given the gravity of the allegations and their potential impact on public order, the State argued that the accused was not entitled to bail.
As per the prosecution’s version, the sequence of events began when a call was allegedly issued for members of a particular community to assemble at Islamia Inter College in Bareilly on September 26, 2025.
Authorities claim that despite prohibitory orders imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), nearly 500 individuals gathered and marched from Maulana Azad Inter College toward Shyamganj Chauraha.
Investigators allege that participants carried placards, raised provocative slogans, and ignored repeated appeals and warnings issued by police personnel deployed at the site.
According to the FIR, tensions escalated as sections of the crowd became increasingly aggressive and insisted on continuing their march despite restrictions.
The situation allegedly deteriorated further when stones, bricks, and acid-filled bottles were thrown at law enforcement personnel.
Investigators have also alleged that gunshots were fired from within the crowd, creating a serious threat to public safety and the police officers present at the scene.
The FIR states that several police personnel were assaulted during the unrest, with uniforms being torn and at least two officers sustaining injuries.
Authorities further alleged that the violence created panic across the locality and generated an atmosphere of fear among residents and businesses in the area.
The prosecution maintains that law enforcement officials initially attempted to defuse the situation through persuasion and dialogue.
However, after repeated efforts reportedly failed and the crowd remained confrontational, police were compelled to take defensive measures in an effort to restore order and prevent further escalation.
While the allegations remain subject to examination during trial, the High Court concluded that, considering the seriousness of the accusations, the potential impact on communal peace, and the material placed before it at this stage, the case was not fit for the grant of bail.
The Court therefore rejected the application, leaving the accused to continue in judicial custody pending further proceedings.
