Allahabad High Court has granted bail to five men accused of throwing non-vegetarian food leftovers into the Ganga during an iftar gathering on a boat in Varanasi, while observing that such an act could hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community.
Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla passed the order on May 15 in the bail pleas of Mohammad Azad Ali, Mohammad Tahseem, Nihal Afridi, Mohammad Tauseef Ahmad and Mohammad Anas. The court noted the allegations against them, the absence of criminal antecedents, the period already spent in custody, and the apology expressed by the accused and their families before concluding that a prima facie case for bail had been made out.
The case arose from an iftar party held during Ramzan on a boat in the Ganga at Varanasi, where the participants were accused of consuming chicken biryani and throwing leftovers, including food waste, into the river. The complaint alleged that the act was deliberate and had caused outrage because of the river’s sacred status for Hindus and its central place in the religious life of Varanasi.
The court observed that the alleged disposal of non-vegetarian food waste into the Ganga could rightly be seen as hurting Hindu religious sentiments. At the same time, it recorded that the applicants had expressed remorse through affidavits and that their families also regretted the pain caused to society at large. The bail order did not amount to an acquittal, and the criminal proceedings will continue in accordance with law.
The High Court also appeared to treat the prosecution’s wider allegations with caution. One part of the complaint had alleged extortion and intimidation, but the court found aspects of those claims doubtful at the bail stage. That distinction became important because the order separated the emotional and religious sensitivity of the alleged act from the legal test for continued custody.
The five men were among 14 persons booked after the incident came to public attention through videos and complaints. Earlier proceedings before a Varanasi court had resulted in rejection of bail for the accused, who were sent to judicial custody after their arrest in March. The case then moved to the High Court, where separate bail applications were considered by different benches.
Eight of the 14 accused have now secured bail from the High Court. In separate orders on May 15, Justice Shukla granted bail to five applicants, while another bench granted bail to three others. The remaining accused are expected to pursue their legal remedies separately, depending on the status of their applications and the prosecution’s response.
The incident has drawn attention because it sits at the intersection of criminal law, religious sentiment, public order and environmental concerns. The Ganga is legally and culturally treated with exceptional sensitivity, particularly in Varanasi, where riverfront rituals, cremation rites, temple activity and pilgrimage are part of daily civic and religious life. Any allegation of polluting or disrespecting the river in such a setting can quickly acquire wider communal significance.
Police action in the case followed allegations that the gathering had been organised on the river and that videos of the event circulated publicly. The complaint referred to the consumption of non-vegetarian food on the boat and the alleged disposal of leftovers into the water. The prosecution argued that the act was not merely a matter of littering but one capable of disturbing public harmony and offending religious feelings.
The defence maintained that the accused had been falsely implicated or that the allegations had been exaggerated. Counsel for the applicants also placed emphasis on their lack of criminal history, their period of detention, and the expression of apology. The High Court’s order reflected the settled principle that bail, particularly before conviction, depends on factors such as the gravity of allegations, risk of flight, likelihood of tampering with evidence, antecedents and the necessity of further custody.
The legal provisions invoked in the matter include offences linked to hurting religious sentiments, promoting enmity, public nuisance and pollution. The case has also revived debate over how authorities should handle incidents involving religious symbolism in shared public spaces, especially when viral videos intensify public reaction before courts assess evidence.
