The Allahabad High Court on December 17, 2025 rejected the bail plea of Rihan, an accused in a violence case linked to a prohibited religious gathering in Bareilly, holding that raising the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda” amounts to a challenge to the sovereignty and integrity of India and the authority of its legal system.

A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal declined to grant bail in a case involving allegations of large-scale violence, injuries to police personnel, and damage to public and private property following an unlawful assembly convened despite prohibitory orders being in force.

The case arises from an FIR registered on May 26, 2025 at Kotwali police station, Bareilly, alleging that the president of the Ittefaq Minnat Council, Maulana Taukir Raza, along with other leaders including Nadeem Khan, had called upon members of the Muslim community to assemble after namaz at the grounds of Islamia Inter College. The FIR was registered under Sections 109(1), 109(2), 118(2), 121(1), 189(5), 191(2), 191(3), 195(1), 196(1), 196(2), 223, 310(2), 324(5), 324(6), 61(2), 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

According to the prosecution, police had prior information about the call for the gathering, and prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were in force, banning the assembly of more than five persons. Despite police warnings, a crowd of around 500 people allegedly gathered in the Biharipur area.

The FIR alleged that the crowd raised slogans against the State and repeatedly chanted “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda”. When police personnel attempted to stop the procession and enforce prohibitory orders, the situation allegedly escalated into violence, with the crowd resorting to stone pelting, firing, and throwing petrol bombs. Several police personnel were injured, and multiple police and private vehicles were damaged.

Seven persons, including Rihan, were arrested at the spot. Based on their statements, CCTV footage, and independent witnesses, police later named 25 accused and around 1,700 unknown persons in the FIR.

Seeking bail, Rihan contended that he had been falsely implicated and claimed that he was not arrested from the spot but from his home. He further argued that he had no prior criminal history and that there was no incriminating material linking him to the alleged violence.

The State strongly opposed the bail plea. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the acts attributed to Rihan were not merely law-and-order issues but offences against the State. It was argued that the slogan raised by the crowd advocated a form of punishment not recognised under Indian law and reflected a complete disregard for the constitutional and legal framework.

In its detailed order, the High Court examined the scheme of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to religion and public order. The court observed that Indian criminal law already provides punishment for deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings or promote enmity between communities, and that advocating beheading as punishment amounted to incitement and a direct challenge to the rule of law.

The court noted that while religious slogans are common across faiths, they cross into criminality when used to intimidate, incite violence, or undermine constitutional authority. It held that the slogan in question was not rooted in religious texts but was used to provoke and threaten, thereby attracting penal consequences.

“Chanting the slogan ‘gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda’, which provides punishment of beheading for disrespecting the Nabi (Prophet) amounts to challenging the sovereignty and integrity of India and also the Indian legal system… If a person, instead of respecting the law framed under the Indian Constitution, attempts to challenge the law or promotes or incites people to commit an offence in the garb of providing punishment, (he) should be dealt with strictly,” Justice Deshwal observed.

The judge further emphasised that the slogan “gustakh-e-nabi ki ek saja sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda” “does not have any trace in the Quran or any other religious text belonging to Muslims, still this slogan is being used widely by several Muslim persons without knowing its correct meaning and effect.”

Finding sufficient material in the case diary to show that Rihan was part of the unlawful assembly that raised objectionable slogans, assaulted police personnel, and caused damage to property, the High Court concluded that no case for bail was made out and rejected the application.

Source: LawBeat

The post “Sar Tan Se Juda Slogan Challenges India’s Sovereignty, Rule of Law”: Allahabad High Court Says appeared first on The Commune.