Allahabad HC Denies Bail to Maulana Tauqeer Raza Over ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ Slogan

The Allahabad High Court on Monday rejected the bail application of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, a key figure accused in the September 2025 Bareilly violence case. In a significant judicial observation, Justice Ashutosh Srivastava distinguished the slogan “Gustakh-e-Nabi Ki Ek Hi Saza, Sar Tan Se Juda” from traditional religious expressions, stating that it constitutes a direct challenge to the authority of law and the sovereignty of India. The court emphasized that while slogans like “Jai Shri Ram” or “Allahu-Akbar” are rooted in religious devotion, the specific phrase used by the accused incites armed rebellion, which is punishable under the law.

The legal proceedings stem from an incident on September 26, 2025, when violence erupted in Bareilly following a call for a public assembly. Despite the local administration imposing restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to prohibit gatherings of five or more people, a crowd of approximately 200 to 250 individuals marched toward the Islamia Inter College grounds. The prosecution alleged that the assembly turned violent, resulting in stone-pelting, the use of petrol bombs, and gunfire directed at police personnel, leading to multiple injuries and significant damage to public property.

During the bail hearing, the court explicitly addressed the nature of the slogans raised during the protest. Justice Srivastava noted that the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan—which translates to a call for beheading those who insult the Prophet—cannot be equated with established religious slogans such as “Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu-Akbar,” “Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal,” “Jai Shri Ram,” or “Har Har Mahadev.” The court reasoned that the latter expressions are intended to convey respect for a deity or spiritual leader, whereas the former is a provocative call to violence.

By framing the slogan as a challenge to the state’s authority, the court underscored the distinction between protected religious expression and speech that threatens public order. The bench observed that the slogan “incites the people for an armed rebellion which is punishable under the law.” This judicial stance highlights the court’s focus on the potential for such rhetoric to destabilize the rule of law, rather than viewing the incident solely through the lens of religious sentiment.

The state prosecution has characterized Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan as the “kingpin and mastermind” behind the 2025 Bareilly riots. According to the state’s case, Khan had issued a call for members of the Muslim community to assemble at the Islamia Inter College after Friday prayers to protest against alleged government atrocities and the filing of false cases. The administration’s decision to impose Section 163 BNSS was a direct response to the potential for disorder, yet the assembly proceeded despite the explicit prohibition.

While the defense argued that the call for the protest was canceled after the administration denied permission, the court noted that the crowd nevertheless gathered and engaged in violent confrontation with law enforcement. The court also scrutinized Khan’s conduct following the incident, specifically referencing a speech he delivered in which he thanked the masses for responding to his call and applauded their actions. The court stated that such conduct “cannot also be approved of,” further justifying the denial of bail at this stage of the proceedings.

Counsel for Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan maintained that he was not involved in the mobilization or participation of the violent protest. The defense argued that Khan had been placed under house arrest around 10:00 AM on September 26, 2025, and was confined to the residence of a co-accused, Farhat Ali, at the time of the incident. They asserted that he neither delivered a speech at the site nor issued any specific appeal that could be construed as inciting violence or a breach of public peace.

The High Court acknowledged the factual record regarding Khan’s physical absence from the Islamia Inter College grounds during the violence. However, the court maintained that his role in initiating the call for the assembly, combined with his subsequent public endorsement of the participants' actions, established a sufficient nexus to the events. By rejecting the bail plea, the court signaled that the responsibility for the resulting violence extends to those who organize and encourage such assemblies, even if they are not physically present at the exact moment of the confrontation.

The denial of bail in this case reinforces the judiciary’s strict approach toward public assemblies that defy administrative orders and escalate into violence. By explicitly categorizing the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan as a threat to national sovereignty, the Allahabad High Court has set a clear precedent regarding the limits of speech in the context of public protests. This decision serves as a reminder that the invocation of religious identity does not provide immunity from legal consequences when such rhetoric is used to incite rebellion or challenge the state’s authority.

As the case moves toward trial, the court’s observations regarding the nature of the slogan and the responsibility of organizers will likely play a central role in the prosecution’s strategy. The state continues to hold Khan in custody, where he has remained since his arrest on September 27, 2025. The legal community will be watching to see how these judicial observations influence the broader discourse on the intersection of religious expression, public order, and the limits of protest in India.