Ganga Boat Iftar Case: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Remaining Six Accused
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
18-5-2026-In a matter that attracted significant public discourse and legal scrutiny, the Allahabad High Court on Monday granted bail to six Muslim men who had been arrested for allegedly organising an Iftar gathering the traditional meal marking the breaking of the fast during the holy month of Ramadan aboard a boat on the river Ganga in March.
With this latest order reflecting the court’s exercise of judicial discretion, all fourteen individuals arraigned by the Uttar Pradesh Police in connection with the case have now secured bail, effectively ending their custodial detention while the criminal proceedings remain pending adjudication.
The Present Batch of Bail Applications
The Bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla, upon consideration of the bail applications placed before it, was pleased to enlarge the following accused on bail Mohd Avval, Mohd Ahmad, Mahfooz Alam, Amir Kaifi, Noor Islam, and Danish Saifi.
The present order comes in continuation of a similar exercise of jurisdiction undertaken by the Allahabad High Court in the preceding week, whereby bail had been granted to the remaining eight accused persons Azad Ali, Nehal Afridi, Mohd Anas, Mohd Tahseem, Mohd Noor Ismail, Mohd Tausif Ahmad, Mohd Faizan, and Mohd Sameer.
The Factual Matrix
The prosecution has its origins in the circulation of videos on social media depicting the accused breaking their fast aboard a boat on the river Ganga, which subsequently went viral and triggered public controversy.
A First Information Report (FIR) was thereafter registered upon a complaint preferred by one Rajat Jaiswal, the Varanasi city unit president of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM), who levelled allegations that the accused had caused offence to religious sensibilities. The FIR specifically averred that the accused consumed chicken biryani and disposed of its remnants into the waters of the river.
It is noteworthy that in one of the bail orders, the Court itself observed that the discarding of non-vegetarian food waste into the river Ganga carries the potential to wound the religious sentiments of the Hindu community a remark that underscores the delicate communal sensitivities that pervade the factual backdrop of this matter.
The Statutory Charges
The array of penal provisions invoked against the accused is notable for both its breadth and severity.
The men were initially arraigned under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 298 (defilement of a place of worship), Section 299 (malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), Section 196(1)(B) (promoting enmity between communities), Section 270 (commission of a public nuisance), Section 279 (fouling of water in a public spring or reservoir), and Section 223(B) (disobedience of an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant). Charges were additionally framed under Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
In a subsequent escalation of the prosecution’s case, the police proceeded to add the graver charge of Section 308(5) BNS, which pertains to extortion under threat of death or grievous hurt a charge precipitated by allegations from the boat’s owners that the accused had commandeered the vessel by force.
Furthermore, the accused were also charged under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which penalises the publication or transmission of material in electronic form that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, or is likely to deprave or corrupt those who encounter it.
Significance of the Orders
The successive grant of bail to all fourteen accused by the Allahabad High Court reflects the Court’s assessment that the requirements for continued custodial detention ordinarily informed by considerations of flight risk, tampering with evidence, and the gravity of the alleged offences were not sufficiently met in the facts of this case.
The bail orders do not, it must be emphasised, constitute any adjudication on the merits of the criminal charges, which remain to be determined by the competent court in accordance with law.
The matter continues to be of public interest, touching as it does upon questions of religious freedom, communal harmony, and the boundaries of permissible expression and assembly in public spaces of religious significance.
