‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ Not Like ‘Jai Shri Ram’: Allahabad HC Rejects Key Accused’s Bail Plea in Bareilly Violence Case

The Allahabad High Court has said the slogan “Gustakh-e-Nabi Ke Ek Hi Saja, Sar Tan Se Juda” cannot be equated with other religious slogans as it “is nothing but a challenge to the authority of law” and incites people for an “armed rebellion”.

"The said slogan cannot be equated to other slogans like 'Nara-e-Takbir', 'Allahu Akbar', 'Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal', or for that matter 'Jai Shri Ram' or 'Har Har Mahadev', which are slogans expressing respect to the concerned God or Guru," observed the bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava.

Court made the observation while rejecting the bail application of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, who is accused of being the key conspirator behind the September 2025 Bareilly violence, which involved attacks on police personnel, destruction of public property and the raising of "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogans during prohibited assembly.

Taking note of the allegations against Raza, court pointed out that although Raza was not present at the place where the violence took place and was confined at the house of co-accused Farhat Ali, it was he who had called upon members of the Muslim community to assemble at the grounds of Islamia Inter College after Friday prayers to protest against government action and submit a memorandum to the President of India through the Bareilly District Magistrate.

“The Call was made without seeking permission from the local administration for such a large assembly,” court observed.

Court also took note of allegations of the attacks on police personnel during the violence. Court noted that the state had alleged that the crowd had marched to the Islamia grounds and, when stopped by police personnel “who were merely performing their duties to maintain the law and order”, the personnel were manhandled. The crowd then indulged in rioting and destruction of public property, causing injuries to police personnel.

“These acts cannot be approved of,” court said.

The high court also highlighted the state's submissions on Raza’s conduct after the incident.

“Giving a speech thanking the masses for responding to the Call in large numbers and applauding their acts cannot also be approved of", held the court.

Bareilly violence

According to the prosecution’s case, around 200-250 people marched towards the Islamia Inter College grounds on September 26, 2025 despite an order under Section 163 of the BNSS (earlier Section 144 of the CrPC) prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons at a public place.

When police tried to stop the crowd, it allegedly raised provocative slogans, pelted stones and petrol bombs at police personnel and fired at them. Several police personnel were injured and public property was damaged. Stones, bricks, broken police barricades, fired and live cartridges, a country-made pistol, knives, sticks, rods and glass bottles were recovered from the spot.

What was Raza’s alleged role?

Raza’s counsel argued that he had not mobilised or participated in the violence and had not made any speech, statement or appeal inciting violence or breach of public peace. They also submitted that he had been placed under house arrest around 10 am on September 26 and therefore was not present during the incident.

The State, however, described him as the “kingpin and mastermind” of the Bareilly riots. It alleged that he had addressed meetings calling upon members of the Muslim community to assemble at Islamia Inter College.

The State also relied on a video allegedly recorded after the incident, in which Raza thanked members of his community for responding to the call in large numbers.

While deciding Raza's bail plea, court noted that the charge sheet had been filed against him on December 21, 2025, but charges were yet to be framed.

“Considering all the above, the court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage,” the court said, rejecting the bail application.

Case title: Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan v. State of U.P.

Order date: September 7, 2026

Bench: Justice Ashutosh Srivastava