Allahabad High Court On Ganga Iftar Case: Bail Granted, Religious Sentiments Recognised

Background of the Case

The Allahabad High Court, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 12532 of 2026 titled Mohd Azad Ali And 2 Others Vs State of UP, along with the connected Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 12529 of 2026, dealt with a sensitive issue involving religious sentiments, public order and use of social media. The orders, carrying Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:113234, were pronounced on 15 May 2026.

The controversy arose from an Iftar gathering organised by members of the Muslim community on a boat in the River Ganga at Varanasi in March 2026. During this event, non-vegetarian food was allegedly consumed and the leftover food was purportedly thrown into the Ganga. A video of the incident was then uploaded on Instagram.

Fourteen persons were booked, out of whom five accused came before the Single Judge Bench for bail. The Court considered their continued detention, the nature of the allegations, the significance of the Ganga in the Hindu faith, and the expression of remorse by the accused before deciding to grant bail.

Parties, Counsel and Offences Alleged

Court Proceedings and Representation

The order records that the Court heard:

  • Learned counsel for the applicants,
  • The Learned Additional Advocate General, Sri Anoop Trivedi,
  • Assisted by Sri Nitesh Srivastava, Learned A.G.A. for the State,

and examined the case record before deciding the applications.

Statutory Provisions Involved

The applicants sought bail in relation to Case Crime No. 0065 of 2026, registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District-Commissionerate Varanasi, for alleged offences under:

  • Section 298 B.N.S
  • Section 299 B.N.S
  • Section 196(1)(b) B.N.S
  • Section 279 B.N.S
  • Section 223(b) B.N.S
  • Section 308(5) B.N.S
  • Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

The FIR was originally lodged for offences under sections 298, 299, 196(1)(b), 270, 279, 223(b) & 24 B.N.S. and Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

It is important that none of the offences initially invoked carried a maximum punishment exceeding seven years.

State’s Objections to Bail

Allegation of Desecration and Communal Impact

The Learned Additional Advocate General strongly resisted the bail plea. The key planks of the State’s opposition were:

  • The accused allegedly desecrated the River Ganga, which is revered as a goddess in Hinduism and is a vital river for a large part of northern India.
  • The act of throwing non-vegetarian food waste into the Ganga was projected as an attempt likely to hurt Hindu religious sentiments and disturb communal harmony.
  • A video of the incident was uploaded on Instagram from the account of one of the accused, Mohd. Tahseem, with the handle “rocky_alex_0987”, thereby allegedly amplifying the impact and reach of the incident.

Argument of Larger Conspiracy

The State further contended:

  • The video upload was not an isolated act but allegedly formed part of a larger conspiracy to create communal tensions.
  • Investigation was ongoing to ascertain:
    • Who financed the Iftar event on the boat, and
    • Who encouraged or facilitated the making and uploading of the video.

The Learned Additional Advocate General also relied on a series of decisions from Chhattisgarh High Court, Karnataka High Court, Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court, including:

  • Pranesh Anand and 3 Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
  • Shree Siddalingayya Mahaswami Vs. State of Karnataka and 6 Ors.
  • Dr. Ratan Lal Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another
  • M/S Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Thru. General Manager & Ors.

to emphasise that courts have consistently taken a serious view of actions that disrupt religious and communal harmony.

Relying on these precedents, the State urged that: