Varanasi Court Denies Bail to 14 Men Booked Over Iftar on Ganga Boat
Court Terms Charges “Serious, Non-Bailable” in Varanasi River Iftar Case
Varanasi, March 23, KNT: A court in Varanasi on Monday denied bail to fourteen men accused in a case linked to holding an iftar gathering on a boat in the Ganga river, observing that the offences alleged against them were serious and non-bailable.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Amit Kumar Yadav rejected the bail pleas of the accused, who have been in judicial custody since March 19, officials said.
The case has drawn attention following the circulation of videos on social media showing the men breaking their fast on a boat during the ongoing Ramadan period.
According to the court order, the nature of the allegations and applicable legal provisions did not justify granting bail at this stage of the investigation.
“The crimes committed by the accused were of a serious nature and non-bailable… there are no sufficient grounds to grant bail,” the court observed.
The accused include Azad Ali, Aamir Kaiki, Danish Saifi, Mohd Ahmad, Nehal Afridi, Mahfooz Alam, Mohd Anas, Mohd Awwal, Mohd Tahseem, Mohd Ahmad alias Raja, Mohd Noor Ismail, Mohd Tausif Ahmad, Mohd Faizan and Mohd Sameer.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Rajat Jaiswal, a local functionary of a youth wing of a political party, alleging that the act hurt religious sentiments. The complaint also alleged that non-vegetarian food was consumed and remains were thrown into the river.
What is “Travesty of Justice”?
“Travesty of justice” refers to a situation where the legal system fails to deliver fair, impartial or lawful outcomes, resulting in a gross distortion of justice.
The term is commonly used to describe cases where legal procedures are misused, evidence is ignored or manipulated, or decisions appear to contradict the principles of fairness and due process.
It is not a legal charge or technical term, but a strong expression often used in public discourse, media commentary and legal criticism to highlight perceived injustice.
Courts themselves do not typically use this phrase in formal judgments; rather, it is used by observers, activists or commentators to question the credibility or fairness of a legal outcome.
Based on the complaint, police registered an FIR under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including provisions related to defiling a place of worship, promoting enmity, public nuisance and fouling water bodies, along with relevant sections of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Police later added more serious charges, including provisions related to alleged coercion, after boat operators claimed that the vessel had been taken forcibly.
The accused were also booked under provisions of the Information Technology Act concerning transmission of objectionable content in electronic form.
During the hearing, counsel for the accused argued that they were law-abiding citizens and had been falsely implicated due to personal enmity. They also contended that no meat items were recovered and that the viral video did not establish the allegations.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution said the charges were grave and could attract punishment of up to ten years, adding that the investigation was still underway.
The prosecution further informed the court that another FIR had been registered based on allegations of threats linked to the case.
After hearing both sides, the court held that there were insufficient grounds to grant bail at this stage.
Further proceedings in the case are expected as the investigation continues. [KNT]
