The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to 5 accused booked for consuming non-veg food and throwing the remains into the River Ganges during Iftar. The High Court took note of the fact that the accused from the Muslim community had expressed their regrets.

The High Court was considering the bail applications seeking the release of the applicants on bail in a case registered under Sections 298, 299, 196 (1)(b), 279, 223(b), 308(5) B.N.S., and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla stated, “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.”

Advocate Piyush Mishra represented the Applicant, while Government Advocate represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The case involved members of the Muslim community having a Roza Iftar party. It was alleged that during the said Iftar party, while partaking of food, non-vegetarian food was said to have been consumed by the members of the Muslim community, who then threw the remains into the River Ganges. It was alleged that the applicants had desecrated the River Ganges and, in a brazen attempt to disturb communal harmony, uploaded the video on Instagram through the handle of one of the accused.

Reasoning

Concurring with the submissions of the Additional Advocate General regarding the significance of the river Ganges not only to the Hindu community but also to the country at large, the Bench stated, “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.”

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the acts could rightly be said to hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. “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 added.

The Bench noted that the Additional Advocate General, on the perusal of the police diaries, stated that the video in question was uploaded, supposedly through the account of one of the applicants and the offending video was said to have been taken down as it was violating the community guidelines of the platform.

Considering the averments made in the affidavits, the Bench noticed that the applicants are apologetic for their actions, and even their families also regret the pain caused to society at large. Taking note of the fact that none of the applicants had denied being in the video, the Bench stated that expressing regret showed that the applicants genuinely accepted what was stated on the affidavit and were not using the same as an excuse to escape the punishment of the law. The Bench also opined that the delay by the boatman in coming forward with the allegations of extortion created a suspicion on his story.

In light 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, the Bench held that the investigation could go on without detention of the accused persons. The Bench, thus, concluded the matter by allowing the bail applications subject to certain conditions.

Cause Title: Mohd Azad Ali And 2 Others v. State of U.P (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:113234)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Piyush Mishra, Renu Mishra

Opposite Party: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.