Court Says Religious Sensitivities Must Be Balanced With Settled Bail Principles
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to five accused persons arrested in connection with the alleged “Roza Iftar party” conducted on a boat in the River Ganga at Varanasi, where non-vegetarian food was allegedly consumed and remnants were purportedly thrown into the river, an act alleged to have hurt Hindu religious sentiments and disturbed communal harmony.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla observed that while the religious significance of the River Ganga for the Hindu community and the nation at large cannot be understated, the Court, while adjudicating a bail application, must remain confined to the settled principles governing grant of bail and the facts emerging from the record.
The Court recorded that the prosecution alleged that members of the Muslim community had organized a Roza Iftar gathering on a boat in the Ganges during which non-vegetarian food was consumed and its remains were allegedly discarded into the river. The prosecution further alleged that a video of the gathering was uploaded on Instagram through the handle “rocky_alex_0987,” allegedly operated by one of the accused, thereby causing outrage and disturbing communal harmony.
The Bench noted the vehement opposition by the State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, who argued that the act amounted not merely to desecration of the River Ganga but formed part of a larger conspiracy aimed at disrupting public harmony. The State contended that investigation was continuing to ascertain who had funded the Iftar gathering and facilitated dissemination of the video on social media platforms.
While considering the submissions, the Court undertook an elaborate examination of precedents dealing with offences concerning religious sentiments and communal harmony. The judgment discussed authorities from the Chhattisgarh High Court, Karnataka High Court, Delhi High Court, and prior observations of the Allahabad High Court concerning the sanctity of the River Ganga and the constitutional balance between free speech and public order.
Justice Shukla observed that social media platforms possess the capacity to disseminate information “at lightning speed” and may become hubs of disinformation capable of disrupting public order if misused. The Court accepted that acts affecting religious harmony may potentially trigger larger communal incidents and acknowledged the legitimacy of the State’s concerns regarding public tranquility.
However, the Court simultaneously emphasized that the question before it was limited to whether the accused deserved liberty pending investigation and trial. The Bench observed that the accused had, in their affidavits, expressed “sincere regrets” and remorse for the alleged incident and the pain caused to society.
The Court reproduced paragraph 14 of the affidavits filed by the accused, wherein they stated that although they disputed commission of the offences alleged, they and their families “most sincerely regret and feel pain” over the incident in light of societal sentiments.
Significantly, the Court held that the applicants’ failure to deny their presence in the video, coupled with their expression of regret, reflected genuine remorse rather than a tactical attempt to evade legal consequences. The Bench further noted that most of the offences initially invoked against the accused did not carry punishment exceeding seven years.
The Court also examined allegations of extortion levelled during investigation by the boatman, Anil Sahni, who claimed that the accused had forcibly taken over his boat and threatened him. However, the Bench observed that the boatman had not made any complaint regarding extortion before registration of the FIR, and therefore the delay in making such allegations created prima facie suspicion regarding that aspect of the prosecution story.
Justice Shukla held that the continuing investigation into the alleged conspiracy and funding of the Iftar gathering would not be impeded merely because the accused were enlarged on bail. The Court took into account that the accused had remained incarcerated since 17 March 2026, had no criminal antecedents, had expressed remorse, and had undertaken not to repeat such acts in future.
Accordingly, the High Court concluded that a prima facie case for grant of bail had been made out and ordered release of the applicants on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions restraining them from tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or indulging in criminal activity.
The Court further clarified that all observations in the order were confined solely to adjudication of the bail applications and would not influence the merits of the criminal trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Mohd Azad Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. connected with Mohd Tauseef Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Case Numbers: Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 12532 of 2026 and 12529 of 2026
Date of Order: 15 May 2026
Counsel for Applicants: Piyush Mishra and Renu Mishra
Counsel for State: Sri Anoop Trivedi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Nitesh Srivastava, AGA
Sections Invoked: Sections 298, 299, 196(1)(b), 279, 223(b), 308(5) BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000