After an audible video but with unclear visuals surfaced, Uttar Pradesh Police swiftly arrest Raees, a Muslim villager in Muzaffarnagar. Locals allege police acted harshly without verifying facts
MUZAFFARNAGAR — A 60-year-old Muslim villager from Bhatwada in Uttar Pradesh’s Muzaffarnagar district has been arrested for allegedly using abusive language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The arrest followed circulation of a video clip on social media, but serious doubts have emerged over the authenticity of the evidence and the manner of the police action.
According to police sources, the incident occurred on October 31, when a villager named Raees was accused of making offensive remarks in public. A few locals reportedly recorded the incident and shared it online, after which the video went viral and sparked outrage among right-wing social media users.
However, the viral clip on which the entire case rests — does not show the man’s face clearly. Only the voice is audible, and the speaker appears to be in an intoxicated state. Despite this, police swiftly acted on the complaint filed by a man named Shivkumar and arrested Raees from his home.
Confirming the arrest, Muzaffarnagar Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Sanjay Kumar Verma told reporters, “A case of indecent remarks against the Chief Minister and Prime Minister was reported through a video. After investigation, the accused was identified as Raees. He has been arrested and sent to jail.”
According to police officials, Raees was detained, interrogated, and later presented before a magistrate. Yet, controversy erupted after visuals emerged showing a limping Raees being taken by policemen. Locals allege that he appeared injured and weak, suggesting he may have been mishandled in custody.
Residents of Bhatwada have voiced concern over what they call one-sided and harsh treatment. “The police should have verified whether the voice in the video even belonged to Raees before arresting him,” said a villager who declined to be named. “His face is not visible at all. Anyone could have said those words.”
Witnesses also claim that Raees had been drinking and was mumbling incoherently on the day of the alleged incident. “He was clearly intoxicated. He kept saying he didn’t know what he had done wrong,” said another local. “Instead of sending him for medical help, the police dragged him out and locked him up.”
Muslim community members in the area believe that the police’s quick action reflects growing intolerance and discrimination against minorities in Uttar Pradesh. “It seems that when a Muslim is accused, even without proof, the police act immediately,” said Mohammad Tahir, a social worker from Budhana. “But when hate speech is directed at Muslims, no one is arrested.”
They allege that Raees was made an example to demonstrate loyalty towards political leaders. “The video itself is unclear, but the police rushed to arrest him as if it was an act of terror,” said Tahir. “This is not justice; it’s intimidation.”
The Muzaffarnagar Police have denied allegations of misconduct. They maintain that the action was taken strictly according to law. “No one will be allowed to insult national leaders in public,” said an officer at Budhana police station. “We have sufficient evidence based on the complaint and video footage.”
However, civil rights advocates argue that the Constitution protects freedom of speech, and arresting someone on the basis of an unclear video amounts to misuse of authority.
Legal experts have pointed out that if the face in the video is unrecognisable, then the identity of the accused cannot be confirmed without forensic voice testing. “It is highly irregular to arrest a person solely on the basis of a viral video without clear identification,” said Advocate Firoz Alam, a Muzaffarnagar-based lawyer. “The police appear to have bypassed due process and acted under political pressure.”
He added that the accused’s physical condition indicates that he might have been injured during the arrest. “Instead of following procedure, the police made a public spectacle out of him,” Alam said.
Human rights organisations have noted an increasing pattern in Uttar Pradesh where Muslims are swiftly arrested for alleged remarks against political figures or religious sentiments, often without proper verification. In contrast, hate speeches made by Hindu extremists against minorities rarely see police action.
“This selective justice is tearing the social fabric apart,” said Dr Asma Parveen, a sociologist based in Meerut. “When state agencies act with bias, it destroys faith in the system. Muslims are being treated as soft targets.”
Raees’s family claims that he was innocent and mentally unstable. “He is 60 years old and often talks nonsense when drunk,” said his son, Irfan. “We begged the police to check the video again, but they didn’t listen. Now he’s in jail, and we don’t even know for how long.”
His wife, Shamim, broke down while speaking to reporters: “They dragged him away as if he was a criminal. If he did say something wrong in anger or intoxication, does that mean he should be beaten and humiliated?”
Community leaders have called for a fair investigation, demanding that forensic experts verify whether the voice in the viral video truly belongs to Raees. They also urged authorities to ensure that the elderly man receives proper medical attention in custody.
“We respect the law and leaders of the nation,” said Maulana Nasir Qasmi, an imam from Muzaffarnagar. “But the law must be equal for all citizens. Punishing a poor man without proof is oppression.”
The case of Raees has once again exposed the deepening bias and fear among Indian Muslims, especially in states like Uttar Pradesh, where police actions often appear politically motivated. While authorities insist that they are enforcing the law, locals say such selective crackdowns only alienate minorities further.
As Raees remains behind bars, the debate continues — not just about what he might have said, but about how far the state can go in punishing dissent, and whether justice still means equality before the law.
