Ganga Iftar Row | 'Act Prima Facie Intended To Disrupt Harmony': Sessions Court Denies Bail To All 14 Accused

The Court observed that posting the act on social media, prima facie, established that it was committed with the intention of disrupting social harmony.

Sessions Judge Alok Kumar further noted that inciting religious sentiments and disseminating them through social media further increases the gravity of the crime.

The 14 accused, identified as Azad Ali, Aamir Kaifi, Danish Saifi, Mohd. Ahmed, Nehal Afridi, Mahfooz Alam, Mohd. Anas, Mohd. Awwal, Mohd. Tehseem, Mohd. Ahmed alias Raja, Mohd. Noor Ismail, Mohd. Tauseef Ahmed, Mohd. Faizan, and Mohd. Sameer had moved the Court seeking regular bail days after the CJM court denied them the relief.

The iftar party was allegedly held on March 15, during which the 14 accused purportedly consumed chicken biryani on the boat ride and also disposed of the waste food in the river.

They were arrested on March 17 by the Varanasi Police acting on a complaint by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha district president Rajat Jaiswal.

The accused have been 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] 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 complaint alleged that the act of the accused of sitting on a boat in the sacred river and 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.

During the hearing, the counsel for the accused argued that the accused were falsely implicated due to political malice and vendetta at the behest of ruling party leaders.

It was pointed out that the FIR did not specify the exact time of the incident and that the informant was not an eyewitness to the event.

Furthermore, it was also stated that the police failed to recover any chicken or bones from the site and the viral video itself did not depict any such remains.

It was also asserted that the statements of the boatmen, at best, attracted only Section 351(2) BNS.

On the other hand, appearing for the State, the District Government Counsel submitted that it was as a pre-planned and organized act designed to threaten public peace and communal amity.

It was contended that the video was deliberately circulated on social media and the eyewitnesses [boatman Anil Sahani and Ranjan Sahani] clearly testified that chicken biryani was actually consumed during the Iftar party aboard the boat registered to Kashi Sahani.

The prosecution also informed the Court that the informant and his lawyer, specifically Advocate Shashank Shekhar Tripathi was receiving continuous threats from supporters of the accused.

After perusing the case diary and the submissions of both parties, the Sessions Court found no merit in the bail pleas.

The Judge noted that the eyewitness accounts corroborated the accused's allegations of having partaken in a chicken biryani Iftar party on the boat.

Crucially, the Court observed that the viral video was either recorded by the accused themselves or with their express consent and subsequently posted or allowed to be posted on social media by them.

"Posting the said video on social media prima facie proves that the said incident was committed with the objective of affecting social harmony", the Court noted in its order.

The Judge further reasoned that circulating the content online aggravated the nature of the crime, particularly because the period immediately following the incident involved the celebration of Eid and other festivals.

Thus, the Court concluded that the grounds for bail were wholly insufficient in light of the facts and circumstances of the matter and this, it dismissed the bail applications.