Dr Nafees’ troubles mount; Muslims claim the action reflects growing bias and selective targeting of the community after the September 26 violence
NEW DELHI/BAREILLY – The troubles of Dr Nafees, a close associate of Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC) president Maulana Tauqeer Raza, have deepened after the police reopened a previously closed case related to Waqf property ownership. The move comes weeks after his arrest in the September 26 violence that broke out during the ‘I Love Muhammad’ procession in Bareilly.
According to sources, the Bareilly Police have revived an old complaint filed by Sajda Begum who accused Dr Nafees’s sons—Noman and Farhan—and three others of illegally occupying Waqf property. The complaint was originally filed at Qila police station, but the police had earlier termed the allegations “baseless” in their final report. However, Sajda has recently approached the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) through a confidential helpline, prompting a fresh inquiry ordered by the Circle Officer.
“It appears that the case is being used as a tool to further harass a Muslim family already under pressure,” said a local social activist requesting anonymity. He added, “When the police themselves found the case baseless earlier, reopening it now raises questions about their motives.”
Officials claim that during the reinvestigation, several claims made by the complainant were found to be true, though the Waqf Board’s legal advisor’s statement was never officially recorded. Despite this procedural gap, the SSP has directed the police to reinvestigate the matter.
The development has triggered anger among local Muslims, who believe that the action is part of a broader campaign to intimidate community leaders.
Dr Nafees and his son remain in judicial custody following the violence in September, which led to the arrest of Maulana Tauqeer Raza and several members of the IMC. Earlier, authorities demolished Dr Nafees’s marriage hall, declaring it illegal, and sealed several of his commercial shops, claiming irregularities. Locals allege that these actions were carried out “selectively against Muslims”.
A Bareilly resident and supporter of the IMC, Rashid Khan, said, “The administration’s approach seems one-sided. Instead of ensuring justice, they are targeting those who speak for the rights of Muslims.”
According to Sajda’s renewed complaint, two properties are in dispute. The first lies near Imli Wali Masjid in the Neem Ki Chadhai area, registered as Waqf land and measuring around 900 yards. The second, a 12-bigha plot in Jeevan Sahay Colony, Izzatnagar, reportedly has a market built over it. Sajda claims that rent from the shops is being collected by Dr Nafees’s family, which she believes belongs to the Waqf.
The police have yet to provide an official statement explaining why the case was reopened despite the earlier closure report. Meanwhile, community members argue that such actions reflect a pattern of discrimination and harassment against Muslims in Bareilly following the recent unrest.
A senior IMC member remarked, “When innocent people are punished for their faith, it weakens public trust in justice. The government must stop using police power to silence Muslim voices.”
As tensions simmer in Bareilly, rights groups have urged an impartial judicial inquiry into both the violence and the subsequent administrative actions against Muslim residents. The reopening of the Waqf case against Dr Nafees and his family, many fear, is yet another attempt to criminalise community leadership in the city.
