A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan directed that two armed guards be deployed 24 hours a day to protect Haseen Khan, the owner of the house where prayers were being offered. The Court further issued a strong warning that any incident of violence affecting Khan or his property would be presumed to have occurred at the instance of the State unless proven otherwise.

The order came while hearing a petition filed by Bareilly resident Tarik Khan, who approached the High Court alleging police interference with prayers held at a private residence in Mohammadganj village. The matter is now listed for final orders on March 23, and the Court has directed the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police of Bareilly to appear in person.

Allegations of police interference in private prayer

According to the petition, as per Livelaw, a group of Muslim residents had been offering namaz on the rooftop of a private house with the permission of the property owner, Haseen Khan. The petitioner claimed that on January 16, police personnel allegedly intervened and stopped the prayers, despite the fact that they were being conducted within private premises.

Khan further alleged before the Court that he was picked up from his home by police officials while offering namaz, challenged, and compelled to place his thumb impression on blank documents without being informed of their contents. He also told the Court that certain individuals had threatened demolition of his property if he did not testify in a particular manner.

These allegations prompted the filing of a contempt petition against the state authorities, arguing that the actions of the administration were in violation of an earlier High Court ruling that had affirmed the right to conduct prayer meetings on private property without state permission.

Court’s key observations

During the hearing, the Bench posed a direct query to the State regarding whether permission had been sought for offering namaz inside a private residence, according to LiveLaw.

The Additional Advocate General, Anoop Trivedi, appearing for the State, relied on the police challan and acknowledged that permission had indeed been sought from the persons present in the house, including the owner.

Taking note of the circumstances and the statement recorded from Haseen Khan in open court, the Bench issued strong protective directions.

The Court ordered:

“This Court directs that two armed guards 24/7 shall protect Haseen Khan till this Court decides otherwise. The said guards shall accompany him wherever he goes. Any incident of violence that afflicts Hassen Khan’s person or his property shall be prima facie understood to have at the instance of the State, which of course is open to rebuttal.”

It further observed that any act of violence directed against Khan or his property would be prima facie presumed to have occurred at the instance of the State, though the State would have the opportunity to rebut that presumption.

Personal appearance ordered for Bareilly officials

The Court has summoned Bareilly’s District Magistrate Avinash Singh and Senior Superintendent of Police Anurag Arya to appear before it on the next date of hearing.

In its order, the Bench warned that failure to appear could lead to coercive measures, including securing their presence through a non-bailable warrant.

The complete order may be read here.

Background: Earlier High Court ruling on private prayer

The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of an earlier ruling by the Allahabad High Court in a separate case involving Maranatha Full Gospel Ministries and Emmanuel Grace Charitable Trust.

In that January judgment, the Court held that no permission from the State is required to conduct religious prayers within private premises, since such activity falls within the scope of the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

However, the Court clarified that if religious activities spill onto public roads or public property, authorities may require intimation or permission under applicable law in order to maintain public order.

Ground reality in the village

Despite the High Court’s intervention, reports suggest that the situation on the ground remains tense.

According to reporting by The Times of India, residents of Mohammadganj village say that prayers inside private houses have not resumed, even after the contempt notice issued by the Court. Several villagers reportedly walk nearly two kilometres to offer namaz elsewhere, particularly during the month of Ramadan.

Local residents told the newspaper that although police harassment had reduced after the Court’s order, the presence of police personnel in the area continues and prayers within homes remain suspended due to fear of renewed tensions.

Some residents also alleged that individuals who were earlier detained for offering prayers had been required to report to the police station daily for several days, and that their names now remain in police records.

Origins of the dispute

The dispute reportedly began in December 2025, when construction materials were brought to a piece of land owned by Tarik Khan. Villagers suspected that the structure being built was intended to function as a mosque, triggering protests and police intervention.

Tarik Khan later filed an affidavit stating that the construction would not be used for religious purposes, but tensions persisted.

Subsequently, a group of Muslims began offering prayers inside a private house belonging to Haseen Khan, leading to the police action that has now become the subject of litigation.

Constitutional implications

The case raises broader questions about the scope of religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution, particularly the distinction between private religious activity and public religious assembly.

By ordering armed protection for the house owner and warning that any violence may be presumed to be state-instigated, the High Court’s interim directions underscore the seriousness with which it is treating allegations of state interference in constitutionally protected religious practice.

The matter will be taken up again on March 23, when the Court is expected to hear the personal submissions of the Bareilly district administration and consider final orders in the case.

Related:

Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Bill: Legislating suspicion in the name of “love jihad”

The Erosion of Equal Protection: Constitutional attrition and State apathy in targeted attacks on Kashmiri vendors across the states

Bail for Monu Manesar, along with his grand welcome, rekindles fear and grief in Junaid–Nasir Lynching case

Policing Identity: Maharashtra’s birth certificate crackdown and the politics of belonging

The post Allahabad High Court orders 24/7 armed protection for Bareilly Muslim man allegedly prevented from offering namaz at home appeared first on SabrangIndia.