Allahabad High Court Orders 24/7 Armed Police Protection for House Owner in Bareilly Namaz Contempt Case

Prayagraj/Bareilly- In a significant development emphasizing personal safety and judicial authority, the Allahabad High Court has directed immediate round-the-clock armed police protection for the owner of the house where namaz was offered, while summoning Bareilly District Magistrate Avinash Singh and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya to appear in person on March 23, for final judgment in contempt proceedings.

The order was passed by Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan in Writ Petition (C) No. 5646 of 2026 (Tarik Khan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others) during the hearing on March 11.

The dispute originated on January 16, when a group of Muslims, including petitioner Tarik Khan, offered namaz inside a private vacant house owned by Haseen Khan in Mohammadganj village, Bareilly. The owner had granted permission, and the prayers remained strictly within private premises without spilling onto public roads or land.

Police detained several individuals, including Tarik Khan, and later released them but issued challans under Section 151 CrPC (now Section 170 BNSS), alleging disturbance of public order.

This action came despite the High Court's January 27, 2026 order in Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries vs State of U.P. and 2 Others, where the same bench ruled that no prior state permission is required for religious prayers or gatherings in one's private property — a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution. The state had admitted there is no legal prohibition on such activities in private spaces, though permission and police intimation are needed if they extend to public areas.

Following the Maranatha ruling, Tarik Khan submitted representations to the DM and SSP on January 28 (in person) and February 2 (via registered post), seeking non-interference for namaz during Ramzan. These were allegedly kept pending.

On February 12, the court initiated contempt proceedings against the DM and SSP for prima facie flouting the January order, stayed coercive actions against the petitioner, and listed the matter for March 11.

What did the court say?

The court recorded the statement of house owner Haseen Khan in open court, identified by the petitioner's counsel with no objection from the state side.

Haseen Khan alleged that he and his family were offering namaz at home when police detained them and issued challans. Later, local figures Arif Pradhan and Mukhtyar approached him, threatening bulldozer action against his house if he did not testify in court as instructed. He claimed he was taken outside the village, surrounded by police, and forced to thumbprint a document he could not read due to illiteracy.

On query from Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, the state relied on the challan to assert that permission had been sought from all present, including the owner.

The court rejected the respondents' discharge application and took it on record. Expressing serious concern over Haseen Khan's safety, the bench directed immediate deployment of two armed guards 24/7 for his protection and that of his property. The guards must accompany him wherever he goes. Any violence or incident affecting him or his property will be prima facie attributed to the state (subject to rebuttal).

A copy of the order was sent to the Advocate General's office for immediate communication and compliance. The matter is now fixed for final orders on March 23 at 2:00 PM, with both contemnors mandated to appear personally.

This case highlights ongoing tensions around religious freedom in private spaces and the court's firm stance on enforcing constitutional rights while addressing allegations of coercion and threats.