The Supreme Court on Monday (August 31, 2026) stayed criminal proceedings against Kotdwar-based gym owner Deepak Kumar, better known as ‘Mohammed’ Deepak, who was booked for rioting following an alleged altercation with Bajrang Dal workers over the name of a shop. The court also stayed a March 20, 2026 order of the Uttarakhand High Court, restraining him from making social media posts concerning the incident and the case.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted the interim relief while seeking the Uttarakhand government’s response on Mr. Kumar’s petition challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against him. “Issue notice returnable within four weeks. He also assailed the High Court’s direction restraining Mr. He contended that instead of granting relief to Mr. Kumar, the High Court had imposed an additional restriction on him. Taking the submissions into account, the Bench stayed both the criminal proceedings and the operation of the High Court directive, and sought the Uttarakhand government’s response within four weeks. Kumar had alleged that the police failed to act on his complaints despite being provided with evidence, including videos and details of those allegedly involved. A single-judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal had also restrained Mr. Kumar and his friend Vijay Rawat from posting about the incident on social media while the investigation was pending. “The petitioners should cooperate with the investigation, and till the investigation is completed, they should not indulge in sending messages or videos with regard to the incident. This is essential for a fair and transparent investigation.
In its March order, however, the High Court rejected his prayers for police protection, registration of an FIR against those who had allegedly assembled outside his gym on January 31, and a departmental inquiry against police officials.
In the meantime, proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR shall remain stayed, and also the effect and operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court,” the Bench said in its brief order. Kumar from posting about the incident on social media, describing it as a “blanket gag order”. It had observed that the reliefs sought were an attempt to “sensationalise” the issue and could interfere with the ongoing investigation. If someone indulges in sending messages or videos on social media, this will affect the investigation,” the High Court had said.
Before the High Court, Mr.
