E-Paper
Two Allahabad HC benches grant bail to 8 accused in iftar on Ganga case
Throwing non-veg food into Ganga could hurt religious sentiments but the accused have shown ‘genuine remorse’, observes HC
Prefer HTon Google
The Allahabad high court has granted bail to eight Muslim men accused of organising an iftar party on a boat in the Ganga in Varanasi, consuming non-vegetarian food and allegedly throwing leftover waste into the river.
In separate orders passed on May 15, Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla granted bail to five accused, while Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha allowed the pleas of three others. With this, eight of the 14 accused in the case have now secured bail.
In his 16-page order, Justice Shukla observed that although the alleged act could hurt Hindu religious sentiments, the accused had shown “genuine remorse” through affidavits filed before the court. The judge, however, termed the allegations of extortion against them as “suspicious”.
The 14 accused were arrested on March 17 by Varanasi Police on a complaint lodged by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha district president Rajat Jaiswal.
They were booked under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 196(1)(b) (promoting enmity), 270 (public nuisance), 279 (fouling water of public spring or reservoir), 298 (injuring or defiling a place of worship), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 308 (extortion), and 223(b), along with Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The accused approached the high court after a sessions court in Varanasi rejected their bail pleas on April 1. Earlier, the chief judicial magistrate’s court had also dismissed their applications.
The controversy erupted after a video uploaded on Instagram from the account of one of the accused, Mohd Tahseem, allegedly showed the group consuming non-vegetarian food during a Roza Iftar gathering on a boat and throwing leftovers into the river.
Opposing the bail pleas, additional advocate general Anoop Trivedi argued that the accused had desecrated the Ganga and uploaded the video in an attempt to disturb communal harmony. He further submitted that the matter appeared to be part of a larger conspiracy and that the investigation was underway to ascertain who funded the Iftar party and facilitated the circulation of the video online.
The State also argued that the Ganga is not only revered as a goddess by Hindus, but is also the lifeline of northern India. According to the prosecution, the alleged act hurt public sentiments across the country and created a serious public order situation.
Counsel for the accused, however, contended that the applicants had been falsely implicated and had no intention of hurting the sentiments of the Hindu community. The defence further submitted that the accused were poor weavers whose sole source of livelihood was weaving.
Justice Shukla, while agreeing with the State’s submissions regarding the significance of the Ganga, observed that concerns about disruption of communal harmony “were not unfounded”. The court also remarked that social media platforms, while serving as mediums of entertainment and information-sharing, could become hubs of disinformation capable of disturbing social order if misused.
However, the court said that while deciding a bail application, it must confine itself to the facts of the case while keeping larger social concerns in mind.
The bench noted that the accused had expressed regret over their actions and that their families had also apologised for the pain caused to society. It further observed that the applicants’ willingness to acknowledge their presence in the video and express remorse reflected sincerity rather than an attempt to evade legal consequences.
At the same time, the court expressed doubt over the extortion allegations added during the investigation. The boatman, Anil Sahni, had later alleged that the accused threatened him and forcibly took over his boat. The bench found the claim doubtful, noting that the boatman had not initially lodged any complaint or report regarding extortion.
Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, the accused persons’ lack of criminal antecedents, the period already spent in custody, and the remorse expressed by them, the court held that a prima facie case for bail was made out.
The bench also observed that the investigation into the alleged larger conspiracy behind organising the Iftar party and uploading the video could continue without keeping the applicants in further detention. Accordingly, the bail applications of the five accused (Mohd. Azad Ali, Mohd. Tahseem, Nihal Afridi, Mohd. Tauseef Ahmad and Mohd. Anas ) were allowed.
Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, in his much shorter order, noted that the applicants have been languishing in jail since March 17 and have undertaken to file an affidavit before the court concerned and the police station concerned that they will not indulge in/ repeat similar activities in future. He allowed the bail to three of the accused (Mohd. Sameer, Mohd. Ahmad Raza and Mohd. Faizan) on their furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisf action of the court concerned.
