# Rihan v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 744
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43604 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rihan-v-state-of-u-p-54840
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as per the conditions mentioned in the
judgments of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of
Bihar; 2014 (8) SCC 273 and Satyendra
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another; 2021 (10)
SCC 773, that the accused may not be
taken into custody during investigation for
the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. and the
accused may file a writ petition for
quashing of the F.I.R. or for stay of arrest
during investigation or move an application
for anticipatory bail or regular bail before
the competent Court and participate in the
discharge proceedings.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to grant any relief to the
applicant as prayed in the prayer clause as
the issue has already been settled by the
Honble Supreme Court in the case of
State
of
Gujarat
v.
Girish
Radhakrishnan Varde; (2014) 3 SCC
659, in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the
judgment.

15. Accordingly, the application is
dismissed.

16. The trial court is directed to
frame charge in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 744
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43604 of
2025

Rihan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ....Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released
on bail during the investigation/trial.

Head Notes
The
Bharatiya
Nyaya
Sanhita,2023Sections
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; 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act; The Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023-Section
483;
The Prevention of Damage of Public
Property Act,1984-Section 3/4- That
the slogan raised by an individual
person or by a crowd that "gustakh-enabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan
se juda" is a challenge to the authority
of law as well as sovereignty and
integrity of India as the same incites
the people for arm rebellion, therefore,
this act not only will be punishable
under Section 152 BNS but also against
the
basic
tenets
of
Islam-Bail
application rejected.(E-15)

Held- Sufficient material in the case diary
showing that the applicant was part of an
unlawful assembly which not only raised
objectionable slogans challenging the authority
of the Indian legal system but also caused
injuries to police personnel and damaged public
as well as private property, which is nothing but
an offence against the State and he was
arrested from the spot. Therefore, this court
does not find any ground to release the
applicant on bail.
(Para 12 & 14)
Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; Criminal Law
Amendment Act; The Prevention of Damage of
Public Property Act,1984

List of Keywords
Slogan raised; Challenging the authority of law :
As well as sovereignty and integrity of India; Act
not only punishable u/s 152 BNS; Also against
the basic tenets of Islam
12 All. Rihan Vs. State of U.P.
745
Case Arising From
Bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail 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 BNS, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act
and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage of Public
Property Act, Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictBareilly, during the pendency of the trial.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar
Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional
Advocate General, assisted by Sri Sanjay
Kumar Singh and Sri Nitesh Kumar
Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has
been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail 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 BNS, 7 Criminal Law
Amendment
Act
and
Section
3/4
Prevention of Damage of Public Property
Act,
Police
Station-Kotwali,
DistrictBareilly, during the pendency of the trial.

3. As per the prosecution story, an
FIR was lodged on 26.05.2025 with the
allegation that the President of Ittefaq
Minnat Council (in short 'INC'), Maulana
Taukir Raza had given a call to the muslim
community to assemble in the field of
Islamia
Inter
College
to
make
a
demonstration
against
the
State
for
atrocities as well as lodging false cases
against the muslim youth. Police received
information on 25.09.2025 that Maulana
Taukir Raza, as well as one of the leaders
of the INC, Nadeem Khan, had incited
people belonging to the Muslim community
to assemble in the grounds of Islamia Inter
College after the conclusion of namaz on
26.09.2025. Although the police requested
them not to go ahead, Section 163 BNSS
was also enforced in District Bareilly,
prohibiting any assembly of more than five
persons. Thereafter, the first informant,
who was posted near the house of INC
leader Nadeem Khan in Biharipur, Police
Station- Kotwali, District-Bareilly, found
that Nadeem Khan incited the people to
assemble and proceed to Islamia Inter
College, and a crowd also came out from
the house of Nadeem Khan. Thereafter, he
also left the place to incite the people at
other places. It was found that the crowd of
500 people assembled in Biharipur and
they started making slogans against the
Government and also raising slogans
"gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se
juda, sar tan se juda" and police tried to
stop them but they started snatching the
canes of the policemen and also torn their
uniform and on objecting by the police,
they started throwing petrol bomb, firing
and stone pelting which has resulted into
injury to several policemen and also
damage to several police and private
vehicles and on the spot, 7 persons
including the present applicant were
arrested and based on their statements,
names of several persons including the
main accused, Maulana Taukir Raza and
Nadeem Khan, came to surface. On the
basis of the statements of these arrested
persons and on the identification of other
co-accused, an FIR was lodged against 25
named
and
1700
unknown
persons.
Thereafter, police also arrested other
named accused and identified unknown
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons on the basis of information
received from arrested persons, as well as
independent witnesses and also on perusal
of CCTV footage.

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has submitted that the applicant
has been falsely implicated and he was
arrested from his home, but the police
falsely claimed his arrest from the spot. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no
criminal
history
and
there
is
no
incriminating
material
against
him.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be
released
on
bail
during
the
investigation/trial.

5. Per contra, Sri Anoop Trivedi,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General,
assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh and Sri
Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA,
have vehemently opposed the prayer and
submitted that the act of the applicant and
other co-accused is not only promoting
enmity between the religious communities
but also against the State as well as against
the unity and integrity of India. It is further
submitted
by
the
learned
Additional
Advocate General that the slogans used by
the crowd "gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan
se juda, sar tan se juda" itself shows that
the persons involved in the crowd do not
have any respect for the Indian legal
system, as disrespect to any God or Nabi of
any religion is punishable in BNS by
providing appropriate punishment, and
there is no such punishment for beheading
a person who disrespects the God or Nabi
of any religion. Therefore, such an act is
punishable not only u/s 152 of BNS but
also under other sections of BNS, as the
persons involved, including the applicant,
challenged the sovereignty and integrity of
India by their act of raising the abovementioned slogans and destroyed public
and private properties.

6.
Considering
the
aforesaid
submission and on perusal of record, it is
not in dispute that at the instigation of INC
President, Maulana Taukir Raza as well as
another leader, Nadeem Khan, a crowd of
more than 500 people assembled in
Biharipur area of Police Station- Kotwali
and made slogans against the State as well
as
the
disputed/objectionable
slogan
"gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se
juda, sar tan se juda" and on being
prevented by the police, they starting
pelting stones, firing, damaging police and
private vehicles and applicant as well as
other six persons were also arrested from
the spot. However, before analysing the
aforesaid fact, it would be appropriate to
mention that the offence of blasphemy or
disrespecting any religion or God is
punishable u/s 299 and 196 BNS. Section
302 of BNS further provides that if any
person deliberately utters any word to
wound religious feeling, then he shall be
punished. In BNS, there is a specific
Chapter, i.e. Chapter XVI, which provides
offences relating to religion, and the
relevant sections are Sections 298, 299 and
302 BNS, which are quoted as under:

 "298. Injuring or defiling place
of worship with intent to insult religion of
any class.-Whoever destroys, damages or
defiles any place of worship, or any object
held sacred by any class of persons with
the intention of thereby insulting the
religion of any class of persons or with the
knowledge that any class of persons is
likely to consider such destruction, damage
or defilement as an insult to their religion,
shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may
12 All. Rihan Vs. State of U.P.
747
extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.

 299. Deliberate and malicious
acts, intended to outrage religious feelings
of any class by insulting its religion or
religious beliefs.-Whoever, with deliberate
and malicious intention of outraging the
religious feelings of any class of citizens of
India, by words, either spoken or written,
or by signs or by visible representations or
through electronic means or otherwise,
insults or attempts to insult the religion or
the religious beliefs of that class, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.

 302. Uttering words, etc., with
deliberate intent to wound religious
feelings of any person.-Whoever, with
the deliberate intention of wounding the
religious feelings of any person, utters
any word or makes any sound in the
hearing of that person or makes any
gesture in the sight of that person or
places any object in the sight of that
person,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both."

7. Apart from this, if any group
of persons either by spoken or written or
by sign or visible representation or
through
electronic
communication
promote or attempt to promote enmity
between the different groups on the
ground
of
religion
then,
that
is
punishable u/s 196 BNS with the
imprisonment up to 3 years and if same
has been committed in place of any
worship then same would be punishable
up to 5 years. Section 196 of BNS is
being quoted as under:
 "196. Promoting enmity between
different groups on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence, language,
etc.,
and doing acts
prejudicial
to
maintenance of harmony.? (1) Whoever-

 (a) by words, either spoken or
written, or by signs or by visible
representations
or
through
electronic
communication or otherwise, promotes or
attempts to promote, on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, caste or community or any other
ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings
of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities;
or

 (b) commits any act which is
prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony
between
different
religious,
racial,
language or regional groups or castes or
communities, and which disturbs or is
likely to disturb the public tranquillity; or

 (c)
organises
any
exercise,
movement, drill or other similar activity
intending that the participants in such
activity shall use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence or knowing it to
be likely that the participants in such
activity will use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence, or participates
in such activity intending to use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence or
knowing it to be likely that the participants
in such activity will use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence, against any
religious, racial, language or regional
group or caste or community and such
activity for any reason whatsoever causes
or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a
feeling of insecurity amongst members of
such religious, racial, language or regional
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
group or caste or community, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both.

 (2) Whoever commits an offence
specified in sub-section (1) in any place of
worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance of religious worship or
religious ceremonies, shall be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to
five years and shall also be liable to fine."

8. From the perusal of the above
section, it is clear that BNS has taken care
of all such situations where any person
disrespects any religion or its God, Prophet,
Guru or attempts to promote enmity
between the religious groups by chanting
any slogan or visible representation, then
appropriate punishment has also been
provided. Therefore, chanting the slogan
"gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se
juda, sar tan se juda" which provides
punishment of beheading for disrespecting
the Nabi(Prophet) amounts to challenging
the sovereignty and integrity of India and
also the indian legal system, which is based
on solemn constitutional objective, which
is rooted in democratic principles. The
Constitution of India provides freedom of
speech and expression as well as other
liberties to all Indian citizens irrespective
of their caste, creed or religion. Therefore,
if a person, instead of respecting the law
framed under the Indian constitution,
attempts to challenge the law or promotes
or incites people to commit an offence in
the garb of providing punishment, though
the same is not provided in the criminal law
then that should be dealt with strictly. The
Constitution of India permits the right to
assemble and freedom of speech and
expression
under
Article
19 of
the
Constitution of India, but it has certain
limitations as per Article 19(2) of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, any slogan
by a crowd that provides a death sentence
contrary to the appropriate punishment
provided by the BNS or other criminal law
is not only against the constitutional object
but also a challenge to the lawful authority
of the indian legal system and also
punishable under Section 152 BNS.

9.
Generally,
slogans
or
proclamations are used in every religion,
but these slogans are for the purpose of
showing their respect to the concerned God
or Guru, like in Muslim "nara-e-takbir"
followed by "Allahu Akbar" which means
God is the greatest and there is no dispute
or objection about it. Similarly, in the Sikh
religion, the slogan (proclamation) "Jo bole
so nihaal, Sat Sri Akal" is also an
acknowledgement of God as the ultimate,
timeless
reality
and
this
call
was
popularised by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
Similarly, chanting the slogans (Devotional
call) in a cheerful and joyful moments by
Hindus like "Jai Shree Ram" or "Har Har
Mahadev". Therefore, raising or chanting
these
slogans
(Devotional
calls
or
proclamations) by any person or a crowd is
not an offence unless they are maliciously
used to intimidate persons belonging to
other
religions.
Though
the
slogan
"gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda,
sar tan se juda" does not have any trace in
the Quran or any other religious text
belonging to Muslims, even then this
slogan is being used widely by several
muslim persons without knowing its correct
meaning and effect.

10. Before 1947, there were several
incidents where the Hindus and Muslims
quarrelled with each other on religious
issues; therefore, in 1927, the blasphemy
law
was
enacted
by
the
English
12 All. Rihan Vs. State of U.P.
749
Government, covering the hurting of
religious feelings as a crime. Thereafter, on
the division of India and Pakistan in 1947,
the Pakistan Government enacted the
blasphemy law. As per this law, any person
who disrespects the religion or the Quran
would be liable to punishment, and this
blasphemy law in Pakistan was further
amended
by
the
Pakistani
Army
Commander, Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, in
1982 by adding section 295-B wherein it is
mentioned that in case any person says
anything disrespecting to Quran then a
person would be liable to life imprisonment
or death. In 1986, the Pakistani blasphemy
law was again amended, and Section 295(c)
was added, which provides that disrespect
to "Huzur Sallallahu alayhi wasallam"
shall also be punishable with the life
imprisonment or death. Thereafter, the
Sariate Court in Pakistan further made this
law more strict and directed that disrespect
to other Nabis (nabiyyin), apart from
"Sallallahu alayhi wasallam", will also be
punishable with the punishment of only
death. Thereafter, in the year 2011, a
Christian woman, Asia Bibi, was convicted
under the blasphemy law in Pakistan. The
Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer,
educated in London, supported the women
Asia Bibi, and this created huge unrest in
the Pakistan and the crowd assembled on
roads making demonstration under the
leadership of Mulla Khadim Hussain Rizvi,
who for the first time used the slogan
"gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda,
sar tan se juda" and thereafter this slogan
also spread to other countries including
India and has been widely misused by
certain muslims just to intimidate the
people of other religions and also to
challenge the authority of the State.
Therefore, it is clear that the slogan
"gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda,
sar tan se juda" used by the crowd in India
is nothing but used to challenge the
authority of law and sovereignty of India
and also to incite people for armed
rebellion.

11. There are several instances
which shows even Prophet Mohammad had
shown
his
kindness
despite
being
disrespected by some people and he never
desired or expressed to behead such person.
In one incident, when Prophet Mohammad
travelled to city of Taif, a non-Muslim
woman neighbour, who frequently harmed
the prophet by throwing garbage in his path
but prophet never retaliated or complaint.
When the neighbour fell ill, the prophet
went to visit her out of kindness, which
ultimately lead the neighbour to embrace
the Islam. The above act on the part of
prophet
Mohammad demonstrated
his
unwavering principle of repelling evil with
good, his deep passion, and his focus on
long
term
guidance
over
immediate
retribution. Therefore, if any follower of
Islam raises a slogan for beheading any
person, who disrespects the Nabi, that is
nothing but disrespect to the ideals of
prophet Mohammad. As love, kindness and
compassion attract others but showing
expression of violence through words
creates enmity or annoyance towards the
religion of the person who promotes
violence.

12. In view of above analysis, it is
clear that the slogan raised by an
individual person or by a crowd that
"gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se
juda, sar tan se juda" is a challenge to
the
authority
of
law
as
well
as
sovereignty and integrity of India as the
same incites the people for arm rebellion,
therefore, this act not only will be
punishable under Section 152 BNS but
also against the basic tenets of Islam.
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Coming to the fact of the
present case, it is not in dispute that such a
disputed or objectionable slogan "gustakhe-nabi ki ek saja, sar tan se juda, sar tan se
juda" was used by the crowd of thousands
of people assembled at the instigation of
Maulana Taukir Raza and when police
stopped the crowd and informed that in
view of the enforcement of order under
Section 163 BNSS, they cannot assemble
and their assembly is unlawfull and also
requested not to assemble in Islamia Inter
College but the people started pelting stone,
throwing petrol bombs and firing which
resulted in injuries to many policemen and
they had also damaged public and private
property,
thereafter
several
persons
including the present applicant were
arrested from the spot.

14. There is sufficient material in
the case diary showing that the applicant
was part of an unlawful assembly which
not only raised objectionable slogans
challenging the authority of the Indian legal
system but also caused injuries to police
personnel and damaged public as well as
private property, which is nothing but an
offence against the State and he was
arrested from the spot. Therefore, this court
does not find any ground to release the
applicant on bail.

15. Accordingly, the bail application
of the applicant is rejected.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 750
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR
CHAUDHARY, J.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4791 of 2025

Rajesh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the petitioner, who is
neither the informant, nor the victim, nor the
closest legal heir of deceased within the
meaning of s. 2(wa) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, possesses the requisite locus standi
to
maintain
writ
petitions
u/a
226
of
Constitution seeking transfer of investigation of
concluded criminal cases to the Central Bureau
of Investigation, particularly when chargesheets have already been filed, trials have
commenced or proceedings are sub judice, and
identical relief earlier sought by the victim's wife
stood withdrawn.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 120-B, 302, 307
and 34 - Official Secrets Act, 1923 - s. 5 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.
2(wa), 216, 320(4) (b), 394 - Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 - s. 2 (11) - Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 - s. 8 - The instant
connected writ petitions were filed by the
petitioner, the uncle of late Ajeet Singh,
seeking transfer of investigation of two
FIRs being Case Crime No. 0015 of 2021
under various sections of IPC relating to
murder of Ajeet Singh, and Case Crime No.
445 of 2020 under Official Secrets Act,
1923 to Central Bureau of Investigation,
alleging undue influence of a politically
influential accused upon the investigating
agency, namely the Special Task Force -
FIR was initially lodged by an injured
eyewitness and, after investigation by
STF, charge-sheets were filed against
multiple
accused,
including
the
said
influential person under lesser sections,
whereupon
trial
commenced
and
witnesses began to be examined - The
wife of deceased, being the primary
victim, had earlier filed multiple writ
petitions seeking identical relief of CBI
investigation, which were dismissed as
withdrawn after remand by Supreme
Court, without any challenge to charge-