The Allahabad High Court has refused to grant bail to Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, who has been named as a key accused in the September 2025 Bareilly violence case.
While dismissing the bail application, the court made a distinction between conventional religious slogans and the controversial “Sar tan se juda” slogan. The bench observed that slogans such as “Jai Shri Ram” and “Allahu Akbar” convey religious devotion, whereas “Sar tan se juda” carries a fundamentally different implication.
The observations were made by a single bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava during the hearing on Monday.
Court Draws Line Between Religious Chants and Threatening Slogan
The court said religious expressions cited during the proceedings are generally intended to show reverence towards God. In contrast, the “Sar tan se juda” slogan, in the context of the case, was viewed as challenging the authority of the law and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
According to the court’s observations, the slogan could potentially encourage people to resort to violence or armed rebellion, making it an act that cannot automatically receive protection under the right to freedom of speech.
The bench also stressed that constitutional protection for free expression does not extend to statements or slogans that threaten the authority of law.
Bareilly Violence Followed ‘I Love Muhammad’ Dispute
The case relates to violence that broke out in Bareilly in September 2025 following a dispute surrounding “I Love Muhammad” posters.
According to the prosecution’s case, protesters had sought to hold a demonstration after FIRs were registered over the posters. Tensions escalated after the proposed gathering was not permitted, with protesters subsequently confronting police personnel.
On September 26, 2025, police teams were allegedly attacked during the unrest, while the controversial slogan was also raised.
Investigators subsequently named Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan as the principal accused in the case.
Court Cites Seriousness of Allegations
During the bail proceedings, the defence sought relief for Khan, but the court declined the request after considering the nature of the allegations and circumstances surrounding the violence.
The court’s reasoning indicated that slogans capable of encouraging violent action have to be examined differently from ordinary religious expressions.
The bench held that the alleged conduct was serious enough to warrant rejection of the bail application.
With the High Court refusing bail, Khan will continue to face proceedings in connection with the Bareilly violence case.
The ruling also places emphasis on the limits of free speech when expressions are alleged to encourage violence or undermine the authority of the state and the law.
