Throwing Non-Vegetarian Food Waste Into Ganga Can Hurt Hindu Religious Sentiments: Allahabad HC
It is a matter of utmost importance to note that the Allahabad High Court in a most progressive, pragmatic, persuasive and pertinent judgment titled Mohd Azad Ali And 2 Others Vs State of UP in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 12532 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:113234 connected with Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 12529 of 2026 that was pronounced just recently on May 15, 2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that throwing non-vegetarian food waste into the Ganga could hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community. It must be mentioned here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Lochan Shukla who authored this leading judgment made the key observation while granting bail to five of the 14 Muslim men who were booked for hosting an Iftar (fast-breaking evening meal eaten by Muslims during the Ramadan month) on a boat on river in March. While taking into account the glaring fact that the accused have been in custody since March 17 and have expressed regret for their actions, the Court granted bail to five of the 14 accused. What must also be noted is that three more accused were granted bail by Hon’ble Mr Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha the same day by way of a separate order.
At the very outset, this noteworthy judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Heard, the Learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anoop Trivedi, the Learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Nitesh Srivastava, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.”
As we see, the Bench then specifies the purpose of the application stating precisely that, “The instant bail applications have been filed with a prayer to release the applicants on bail in Case Crime No.0065 of 2026, under Sections 298, 299, 196 (1)(b), 279, 223(b), 308(5) B.N.S and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Commissionerate Varanasi.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that, “Sri Anoop Trivedi, the Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has contended that the applicants have not only desecrated the River Ganges but have also in a brazen attempt to disturb communal harmony, uploaded the video on Instagram through the handle of one of the accused viz. Mohd. Tahseem. The Learned Additional Advocate General further contends that the video is part of a larger conspiracy to disturb public harmony and investigation is presently ensuing to find out who had funded this Iftar party and was instrumental in promoting the uploading of the video. The Learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that courts all over the country have taken a very strict view of disruption of communal harmony by any individual or group. Sri. Trivedi, relies upon the decisions of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Pranesh Anand and 3 Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Karnataka High Court in Shree Siddalingayya Mahaswami Vs. State of Karnataka and 6 Ors., Delhi High Court in Dr. Ratan Lal Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another and this Court in the case of M/S Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow Thru. General Manager & Ors..”
While adding more to it and continuing in the same vein, the Bench then also enunciates in para 5 that, “Relying upon these decisions, Sri Trivedi submits that the river Ganges is not only a revered goddess in the Hindu religion but is also the lifeline of the northern part of India. The Ganges being desecrated by the group of people which has been identified to be the applicants and other accused has hurt the sentiments of the country at large and not only the Hindu community and has also created a serious situation of public order. He has forcefully submitted that the applicants may not be considered for grant of bail while investigation is in progress.”
While taking a very balanced stand, it is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 12 that, “This Court, while adjudicating upon a bail application, would not be called upon to address the larger issue of the significance of the river Ganges for not only the Hindu community but for the country at large. However, this Court wholeheartedly agrees with the submissions made by the Learned Additional Advocate General regarding the significance of the river Ganges not only to the Hindu community but also to the country at large. Disruption of religious harmony by the acts of a few may lead to a larger incident and the concern expressed by the Learned Additional Advocate General, by relying upon the decisions of different High Courts, is also, to my mind, not unfounded. The social media platforms, which disseminate information at lightning speed to every corner of the globe, have not only become a source of entertainment and information sharing but have also emerged as major hubs of disinformation. This Court is aware of the role that social media plays in disrupting the even flow of life, if misused. However, the Court, while considering the bail application of a person accused of an offence, must stick to the facts of the case, although bearing in mind the larger social issues.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The present case involves members of the Muslim community having a Roza Iftar party, and during the said Iftar party, while partaking of food, non-vegetarian food is said to have been consumed by the members of the Muslim community, who are then alleged to have thrown the remains into the River Ganges. This fact in the dispassionate opinion of the Court could rightly be said to hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community. However, presently the matter engaging the attention of this Court is whether the applicants can be considered for release on bail during investigation and during trial. The Learned Additional Advocate General on the perusal of the police diaries states that the video in question was uploaded, supposedly through the account of one of the applicants Mohd. Tahseem having Instagram handle ‘rocky_alex_0987’. The offending video is said to have been taken down as it was violating the community guidelines of the platform. The applicants, in paragraph 14 of the affidavits filed in both applications, have expressed their sincere regrets. Paragraph No.14 of the affidavits in both bail applications is identical and is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
“14. That the perusal of the first information report affirm and reaffirm that no offence is constituted under the alleged sections but without admitting the applicants and their family most sincerely regrets and feels pain of what has been alleged against them in view of the society at large.””
Equally significantly and most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 14 holding that, “In the prima facie opinion of the Court, the averments made in paragraph 14 of the affidavits show that the applicants are apologetic for their actions and even their families also regret the pain that had been caused to the society at large. This Court further understands that while facing prosecution in a criminal case, specific acceptance of the crime cannot be made by a person swearing an affidavit on behalf of the person, who has been incarcerated and while considering grant of bail an admission to the crime alleged is not warranted. However, the affidavits that have been filed in support of the bail application before the Court as well as the submissions of the Learned counsel for the applicants show genuine remorse for the actions attributed to the applicants.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 15 noting that, “The Learned Additional Advocate General, during the course of his arguments has pointed out that none of the applicants have denied being in the video. In the opinion of this Court, not denying being in the video and then expressing regrets show that the applicants genuinely accept what has been stated on affidavit and are not using the same as an excuse to escape the punishment of the law. The First Information Report was initially 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. None of the offences initially levelled against the applicants constituted punishment of more than seven years. During investigation, the boatman who was in charge of the boat where the said Iftar party had been conducted has disclosed to the police that he was threatened and his boat was forcibly taken over by the accused. The acts constituting extortion have been disclosed in his statement, which need not be detailed here in this order. However, it would be sufficient to note here that before registration of the case, the said boatman had not come forward to lodge any report or make any complaint regarding the extortion meted out to him. In the prima facie opinion of the Court, the delay by boatman Anil Sahni in coming forward with the allegations of extortion creates a suspicion on his story.”
It would be also worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 16 that, “The investigation, as apprehended by the Learned Additional Advocate General regarding the Iftar party being organised, the video being uploaded and the same being used to create religious disharmony being part of a larger conspiracy, in the opinion of the Court, would not be thwarted and the said investigation can continue without further detention of the applicants in prison. The applicants, who are in jail since 17.03.2026, as has been noted above, have expressed their regrets and have also undertaken never to repeat any such act in future, as is the submission of the Learned counsel for the applicants recorded above.”
As a corollary, the Bench then expounds in para 17 holding that, “Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the lack of criminal antecedents of the applicants, the period of detention already undergone and also the apology expressed, as recorded above, prima facie a case for bail is made out.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 18 that, “The bail applications are allowed.”
Most rationally, the Bench then stipulates in para 19 directing and holding that, “Let the accused-applicants- Mohd. Azad Ali, Mohd. Tahseem, Nihal Afridi, Mohd. Tauseef Ahmad and Mohd. Anas involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and two reliable heavy sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
i. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicants will not indulge in any criminal activity.
iii. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
iv. The applicants will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless their personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.”
While adding a rider, the Bench stipulates in para 20 directing that, “In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel their bail.”
For sake of clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 21 holding that, “It is made clear that the applicants shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.”
Further, the Bench then directs and holds in para 22 stating that, “It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by clarifying and holding in para 23 observing that, “The observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.”
In sum, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court has very rightly granted bail where it deemed absolutely appropriate in this leading case as they genuinely expressed remorse and regret! It was also made indubitably clear by the Court that throwing non-vegetarian food waste into the could hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community. My very best friend Sageer Khan in Mackronia locality in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh 33 years ago was also most deadly against polluting which he held to be most sacred for Hindus and ensured that I gave up eating non-vegetarian food in 1995 by advising me on this count when I told him that I had gone to Mata Vaishno Devi shrine several times near Jammu!
Author Bio
