Ganga Iftar Row | Alleged Act Could Hurt Sentiments Of Hindus But Remorse Shown Is Genuine: Allahabad HC In Bail Order
Sparsh Upadhyay
17 May 2026 1:40 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court last week allowed the bail applications of 8 Muslim men accused of organizing an Iftar party, consuming non-vegetarian food on a boat in the river Ganga (in Varanasi) and throwing leftover waste into the river.
In separate orders issued on the same day (May 15), Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla granted bail to 5 of the accused, while Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha granted bail to 3. With this, 8 out of the 14 accused in the case have now been granted bail.
It is pertinent to note that 8 of the 14 accused in this case have now secured bail.
In its 16-page order, Justice Shukla observed that while the alleged act could hurt Hindu religious sentiments, the accused demonstrated "genuine remorse" in their sworn affidavits. The single judge, however, found the extortion allegations against the accused to be 'suspicious'.
Ganga Iftar Party Row | Granting bail to the accused, the #AllahabadHighCourt observed that while the alleged act could hurt Hindu religious sentiments, the accused demonstrated "genuine remorse" in their sworn affidavits.However, HC finds extortion allegations 'suspicious'. pic.twitter.com/iCTYIu9glU— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 17, 2026
Briefly put, all 14 Muslim men were arrested on March 17 by the Varanasi Police acting on a complaint by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha district president Rajat Jaiswal.
The controversy erupted when a video surfaced on Instagram, uploaded from the handle of one of the accused (Mohd. Tahseem), showing the group consuming non-vegetarian food during a Roza Iftar party on a boat and allegedly throwing the remains into the river.
The complaint alleged that the accused's act of sitting on a boat in the sacred river, eating chicken biryani during Iftar and throwing the remnants into the water was "extremely unfortunate and condemnable".
The informant further claimed that this act was deliberately carried out to promote a "jihadi mentality", which deeply hurt the sentiments of Sanatan followers and caused widespread public outrage.
They were then booked under Sections 196(1)(b) [Promoting enmity], 270 [Public Nuisance], 279 [Fouling water of public spring or reservoir], 298 [Injuring or defiling place of worship], 299 [Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs], 308 [Extortion] and 223(b) BNS along with Section 24 [Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter] of The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The accused had moved the High Court seeking bail after a Sessions Court in Varanasi denied them the relief on April 1. Earlier, their bail pleas were also rejected by the CJM Court.
Opposing the bail applications, the Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi argued that the applicants had not only desecrated the River Ganges but had also, in a brazen attempt to disturb communal harmony, uploaded the video on Instagram.
He also contended that the video is part of a larger conspiracy to disturb public harmony and an investigation is presently ensuing to find out who had funded this Iftar party and was instrumental in promoting the uploading of the video.
The State also submitted that the Ganges is not just a revered Hindu goddess but also the very lifeline of northern India. He submitted that the act of the accused had hurt the sentiments of the country at large and had also created a serious situation of public order.
The counsel for the accused, on the other hand, submitted that the applicants had been falsely implicated in the case and they never intended to hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community.
It was further submitted that the applicants are poor weavers who have only weaving as their source of livelihood.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that the fact that the applicants had committed extortion on the said boatman had been brought belatedly to the investigation.
At the outset, Justice Shukla 'wholeheartedly' agreed with the State's submissions regarding the profound significance of the river Ganges, acknowledging its importance not only to the Hindu community but to the country at large.
The Court also noted that the concern expressed by the Additional Advocate General regarding the disruption of religious harmony by the acts of a few may lead to a larger incident was "not unfounded".
The Bench also acknowledged that 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, capable of disrupting the even flow of life, if misused.
However, the Court added that, when considering a bail application by a person accused of an offence, it must stick to the facts of the case, while bearing in mind the larger social issues.
Hence, considering the allegations against the applicants, the bench observed that while the alleged act could rightly be said to hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community, the bench had to presently consider whether they could be released on bail during investigation and trial.
It noted that the applicants are apologetic for their actions, and even their families regret the pain caused to society at large.
"…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", the Court observed.
It also underscored that not denying being in the video and then expressing regrets shows that the applicants genuinely accept what has been stated in the affidavit and are not using it as an excuse to escape the punishment of the law.
The bench, however, clarified that it 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 the grant of bail, an admission to the crime alleged is "not warranted".
Importantly, the Court expressed a doubt regarding the subsequent allegations of extortion levelled against the accused. For context, during the investigation, the boatman (Anil Sahni) alleged that he was threatened and his boat was forcibly taken over by the accused.
The bench found this narrative suspicious, noting that before the case was registered, 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", the bench remarked.
Therefore, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants' lack of criminal antecedents, the period of detention already undergone, and the apology expressed, the Court concluded that, prima facie, a case for bail is made out.
The bench added that, as apprehended by the State, the investigation into the Iftar party being organised, the video being uploaded and its use to create religious disharmony, being part of a larger conspiracy, could continue without further detention of the applicants.
The bail applications were thus allowed.
Case title - Mohd Azad Ali And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and a connected case 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 279
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 279
