The Allahabad High Court observed that allegedly throwing non-vegetarian food waste into the Ganga during an Iftar gathering could hurt Hindu religious sentiments, while Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla granted bail to five accused men in the March 2026 incident.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that allegedly throwing non-vegetarian food waste into the river Ganga during an Iftar gathering could hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla made the observation while granting bail to five of the 14 Muslim men accused in the March 2026 incident and also noted that the accused had been in custody since March 17 and undertook not to repeat similar activities in future.
The case arose from allegations that members of the Muslim community organised a Roza Iftar party on a boat and consumed non-vegetarian food during the gathering. It was alleged that the food remnants were later thrown into the river Ganga. According to the Court, such an act could reasonably be viewed as offensive to the religious sentiments of Hindus.
The Court said,
“The present case involves members of the Muslim community having a Roza Iftar party, and during the said Iftar party, while partaking of food, non-vegetarian food is said to have been consumed by the members of the Muslim community, who are then alleged to have thrown the remains into the River Ganges. This fact in the dispassionate opinion of the Court could rightly be said to hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community,”
An FIR in the matter was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by Rajat Jaiswal, who alleged that the accused consumed chicken biryani on the boat and disposed of its remains in the river.
The accused were initially booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 298, 299, 196(1)(B), 270, 279 and 223(B), along with Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Subsequently, police added more serious charges, including Section 308(5) BNS relating to extortion under threat of death or grievous hurt, after boat owners alleged that the accused had forcibly taken the boat from them. Charges under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act were also added for allegedly uploading objectionable content online.
According to the prosecution, the video of the Iftar gathering had been uploaded through the Instagram account of one of the accused, Mohd. Tahseem, using the handle “rocky_alex_0987.” The Court was informed that the video had later been removed by the platform for violating community guidelines.
Appearing for the applicants, advocates Piyush Mishra and Renu Mishra argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and had no intention of hurting religious sentiments. It was submitted that the applicants had remained in custody since March 17, 2026, and were no longer required for custodial interrogation. The defence further argued that except for Section 308(5) BNS, none of the offences alleged carried punishment exceeding seven years.
The defence also questioned the delayed allegation made by boatman Anil Sahni regarding extortion and forcible use of the boat. Counsel contended that the accused were poor weavers by profession with no prior criminal antecedents and assured the Court that they would not engage in any activity prejudicial to communal harmony in the future.
Opposing the bail pleas, Learned Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi argued that the accused had not only desecrated the river Ganga but had also attempted to disturb communal harmony by uploading the video on social media. He contended that the incident was part of a broader conspiracy aimed at disturbing public order and informed the Court that the investigation was ongoing to identify those who had funded the Iftar gathering and promoted circulation of the video online.
Relying upon various judicial precedents, including decisions of the Chhattisgarh High Court, Karnataka High Court and Delhi High Court, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the river Ganga was not only sacred to Hindus but also held national significance as the lifeline of northern India. He argued that the alleged actions of the accused had hurt sentiments across the country and created concerns relating to public order and communal harmony.
While considering the matter, the High Court acknowledged the concerns raised by the State regarding communal harmony and the significance of the river Ganga.
The Court said,
“However, this Court wholeheartedly agrees with the submissions made by the Learned Additional Advocate General regarding the significance of the river Ganges not only to the Hindu community but also to the country at large. Disruption of religious harmony by the acts of a few may lead to a larger incident and the concern expressed by the Learned Additional Advocate General, by relying upon the decisions of different High Courts, is also, to my mind, not unfounded. The social media platforms, which disseminate information at lightning speed to every corner of the globe, have not only become a source of entertainment and information sharing but have also emerged as major hubs of disinformation. This Court is aware of the role that social media plays in disrupting the even flow of life, if misused.”
At the same time, the Court observed that the remorse expressed by the accused and their families could be considered while deciding the bail applications. The Court noted that though the accused could not be expected to formally admit guilt during the pendency of criminal proceedings, the affidavits filed before the Court reflected genuine regret over the incident.
The court said,
“This Court further understands that while facing prosecution in a criminal case, specific acceptance of the crime cannot be made by a person swearing an affidavit on behalf of the person, who has been incarcerated and while considering grant of bail an admission to the crime alleged is not warranted. However, the affidavits that have been filed in support of the bail application before the Court as well as the submissions of the Learned counsel for the applicants show genuine remorse for the actions attributed to the applicants.”
Read Also: NGT: ED Inaction Encourages Violation of Environmental Laws
The Court further observed that none of the offences initially alleged against the accused prescribed punishment exceeding seven years. It also expressed doubt regarding the extortion allegation raised by the boatman, observing that he had not initially filed any complaint regarding forcible occupation of the boat.
The Court noted,
“It would be sufficient to note here that before registration of the case, the said boatman had not come forward to lodge any report or make any complaint regarding the extortion meted out to him. In the prima facie opinion of the Court, the delay by boatman Anil Sahni in coming forward with the allegations of extortion creates a suspicion on his story,”
Taking into account the period of incarceration since March 17, 2026, the absence of criminal history, and the expression of remorse by the accused and their families, the High Court granted bail to five of the accused persons.
On the same day, Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha also granted bail to three additional accused through a separate order.
Justice Sinha noted in the order,
“The applicants have been languishing in jail since 17.03.2026 and they have undertaken to file affidavit before the learned Court concerned and the concerned police station that they will not indulge in / repeat similar activities in future,”
Case Title: Mohd Azad Ali And 2 Others v State of UP
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE