Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Maulana Tauqeer Raza in 2025 Bareilly Violence Case
_848204803.jpg)
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a stern legal verdict by rejecting the bail application of Maulana Tauqeer Raza, founder of the Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC), who remains incarcerated in connection with the Bareilly violence of September 2025. Presiding over the matter, Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed in his order on Monday that the provocative slogans raised during and after the unlawful assembly constituted a direct challenge to the rule of law as well as the sovereignty and integrity of India. Noting that Tauqeer Raza has been behind bars since October 13, 2025, and that formal charges are yet to be framed despite a chargesheet being filed in December 2025, the court firmly ruled that the applicant was not entitled to pre-trial freedom given the gravity of the offenses.
Unauthorized Assembly, Stone-Pelting, and Acid Bottle Attacks Following Denied Permission
According to the prosecution case, the sequence of events began when Maulana Tauqeer Raza gave a public call urging members of the Muslim community to assemble at the Islamia Inter College campus after Friday prayers on September 26, 2025, to protest against authorities denying permission for a rally supporting the "I Love Mohammad" campaign. Despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Indian Civil Security Code (BNSS) being strictly in force, a volatile crowd of 200 to 250 people gathered and marched from Maulana Azad Inter College toward Shyamganj Square. Armed with placards, the mob ignored police warnings, turned violent, pelted security personnel with stones, threw bottles filled with acid, and resorted to opening fire.
Severe Law Enforcement Impact and Court Observations on Exploiting Religious Gatherings
The FIR details the intense chaos that ensued on the ground, noting that police officers were physically assaulted, their uniforms torn, and multiple personnel sustained injuries, forcing law enforcement to fire warning shots in the air to restore order and prevent further bloodshed. In its comprehensive ruling, the High Court remarked that the petitioner cynically exploited the sacred occasion of Friday prayers to advance personal religious and political motives, mobilizing an unauthorized gathering under the pretext of submitting a memorandum to the President through the District Magistrate. The court dismissed defense arguments that the gathering had been officially called off due to Section 163 restrictions, pointing out that the mob did assemble, march, and launch a vicious assault on police officers.
High Court Distinguishes Provocative Slogans from Traditional Religious Proclamations
Addressing the core ideological aspects of the case, the High Court concurred with the arguments presented by Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi on behalf of the state government. The court specifically noted that provocative slogans chanted during the unrest—such as "Gustakh-e-Nabi ke ek hi saza, sar tan se juda"—cannot be equated or compared to traditional, peaceful religious proclamations like "Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu Akbar," "Jo Bole So Nihal, Sat Sri Akaal," "Jai Shri Ram," or "Har Har Mahadev." The bench emphasized that while standard religious slogans express devotion or respect for a deity, inflammatory chants challenging legal authority strike at the foundations of national integrity, reinforcing the judiciary's unyielding stance against communal violence and public disorder.
_1433284838_351x234.jpg)
_87645329_351x234.jpg)
_1477679090_351x234.jpg)
_1947583324_351x234.jpg)
_1810848285_351x234.jpg)
