Bareilly Violence: Allahabad High Court Declines to Quash FIR, No Protection From Arrest

The Allahabad High Court has declined to quash an FIR lodged against Bareilly resident Adnan accused of participating in a violent mob that allegedly attacked police personnel during a protest on September 26.

The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad also refused to grant any protection from arrest, instead permitting the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for remedies available under criminal law.

An FIR was registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 124(2), 121, 125, 352, 351(3), 109, 299, 223 of B.N.S. and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, at Baradari police station, Bareilly, following a protest call allegedly given by Islamic cleric Maulana Taukir Raza.

The protest was held over rising tension over alleged derogatory remarks against the Prophet in parts of the country, including Shahjahanpur, which had already fuelled anger and local mobilisation. The protesters also opposed objections from right-wing groups after the “I Love Muhammad” posters were displayed during a Kanpur Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi procession. The posters had led police to book 24 people.

In the Bareilly violence  case, according to the prosecution record placed before the court, police officials deployed for law-and-order duty received information that members of a particular community had begun assembling in response to the call and were marching from Maulana Azad Inter College toward Shyamganj Chauraha. Officers stated that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in force and no permission had been granted for any public programme.

The FIR narrates that nearly 200 to 250 persons were part of the march and were carrying boards while raising provocative slogans. Police claimed they repeatedly urged the crowd to disperse and warned them through loudspeakers that such a gathering was unlawful. However, according to the complaint, the nominated accused and others refused to heed the directions and became increasingly restive. Police informed their superior officers and placed barricades in an attempt to halt the advancing crowd.

The FIR further states that the situation escalated when brickbats, stones and acid bottles were allegedly thrown from within the crowd at the police personnel. The police said they opened fire in self-defence after warnings failed. The mob then reportedly took shelter in a nearby pucca house and resumed hurling stones and bricks. The FIR also alleges that gunshots were fired from the side of the crowd, during which two police personnel sustained injuries and uniforms were torn. The police later recovered used firearm cartridges, stones and acid bottles from the spot.

Appearing for the State, Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi argued that the attack on a police party maintaining public order strikes at the authority of the State and creates a direct threat to the rule of law. He submitted that the investigation was underway and that the petitioner was a named accused. The State contended that granting any interim protection or interference at this stage would obstruct the probe.

To reinforce this, the AAG relied on landmark Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, which caution High Courts against quashing FIRs or restraining arrest when investigations are at a nascent stage. These judgments emphasise that courts must refrain from halting criminal processes except in exceptional and rare cases where no offence is disclosed.

Faced with the State’s objections, counsel for the petitioner informed the bench that he no longer wished to press the prayer seeking quashing of the FIR. Instead, he requested liberty to approach the competent court for remedies such as anticipatory bail.

The bench recorded the statement and declined the prayer for quashing. It held that the petitioner was free to pursue any other legal remedy available to him.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the observation that it is always open to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedies.

Case Title: Adnan vs State of UP and 2 Others

Order Date: November 13, 2025

Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad