Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh): Days after securing bail in an unsubstantiated case against them for having a non-vegetarian iftar meal in a forested area about three kilometres from a Hindu ashram, eight Muslim men in Uttar Pradesh’s Shravasti district found themselves re-arrested following political intervention — despite no clear evidence of wrongdoing and questionable legal grounds underpinning the charges.On March 24, four days after the first arrest followed by bail of four Muslim men for allegedly cooking and eating a non-vegetarian meal near the Sonpathri Ashram, local BJP Yuva Morcha president Hariom Tiwari wrote a letter to the superintendent of police.“Prima facie this incident seems like a planned conspiracy,” Tiwari claimed in the letter.The letter, a copy of which was seen by The Wire, further alleged, “There is also an apprehension that this incident may be related to assessing the security arrangements of the sensitive border area or could be linked to some form of espionage activity.”On March 24 morning, Tiwari along with a group of supporters had first met Shravasti’s district magistrate, Ashwini Kumar Pandey, which was followed by another interaction with the superintendent of police, Rahul Bhati.“I was assured that strict action will be taken,” Tiwari told The Wire while talking about his meetings with the officials. Tiwari had joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2010 and has been the district-level Yuva Morcha president since 2021.“I had gone to the SP’s office at 10 am and as per my information arrests took place between 1-2 pm,” said Tiwari.The letter by BJP Yuva Morcha president to the SP.Six Muslim men were arrested by the Shravasti Police by late afternoon that day. Those arrested included Shravasti residents Jamal Ahmed, Irfan Ahmed and Sufiyan, and Shakir, Sheru Ahmed and Shamshad Ali from Bahraich district.Two of these men – Jamal Ahmed and Irfan Ahmed – had been granted bail by the SDM Court just days earlier, on March 20, in connection with the same iftar party case.Timeline of arrestsOn March 19, two FIRs were registered at Shravasti’s Sirsiya police station.The first FIR was registered at 10:15 pm on behalf of Maharaj Harisharnanand, a priest at the Sonpathri Ashram.Nestled in the Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary, which stretches across a 452 square km area in Shravasti, Balrampur and Gonda districts, the Sonpathri Ashram has a Shiva temple in its premises.In his complaint to the police, Harisharnanand said, “My disciple Tirth Ram first informed me about an iftar party near the water nullah close to the temple.”The area, close to the India-Nepal border, has several nullahs or water streams coming down from the Himalayan mountain range.“When I reached the spot, I saw Mohd Azam, Immi Bhai, Zahir and 15-20 other persons having a non-veg meal on plates and throwing the leftover meat and bones in the same water which is used for washing idols inside the temple, as well as for our own cooking and drinking purposes,” Harisharnanand’s complaint further noted.“I’m really offended by this and my religious feelings have been hurt,” Harisharnanand, a priest at the Sonpathri Ashram since 1987, continued in his complaint.The nullah flows downstream, crossing the ashram area first and later the spot where the iftar meal was held.Mohd Azam, Immi Bhai alias Imran Ahmed, Zahir Khan and 15-20 unknown persons were thus booked under Section 196 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.Maharu Murtiha village in Shravasti, where some of accused Muslim men have homes. Photo: Special arrangementAround 20 minutes later, a second FIR was registered at the Sirsiya police station at 10:33 pm.In his complaint, Radheyshyam Yadav, a forest official from the East Suhelwa Range, alleged that “15-20 unknown persons had entered the area without any valid permission”.The second FIR, a copy of which has been accessed by The Wire, also mentioned that “fire was lit and food was cooked while celebrating an iftar party and such action amounts to causing damage to the flora and fauna in the reserved forest area”.No one was named in this FIR, which referred to the accused as 15-20 unknown persons. The FIR had been filed under Sections 26, 27, 29 and 9 of the Indian Forest Act 1927.In a press note issued on March 20, Shravasti Police stated that they had arrested four persons – Jamal Ahmed, Irfan Ahmed, Imran Ahmed alias Immi and Zahir Khan – in connection with the case. All four were granted bail by the SDM Court the same day.On March 24, Shravasti Police informed the local media about arresting six persons in connection with the iftar party case – Jamal Ahmed, Irfan Ahmed, Shakir, Sheru Ahmed, Shamshad Ali and Sufiyan. Jamal Ahmed and Irfan Ahmed had been arrested again while Imran Ahmed alias Immi and Zahir Khan were absconding during the second round of crackdown by the police. The total number of accused who were arrested in the iftar party case had now gone up to eight.According to the investigating officer in the case Shahab Rao, the six men arrested on March 24 were granted bail by the CJM Court on March 28.Six Muslim men were arrested in the case on March 24, by the Shravasti Police. Photo: Special arrangementPushing for arrest of Muslim menFollowing the first round of arrests and subsequent bail of Muslim men, Tiwari had taken to social media calling for more stringent action.“Accused getting bail by Bhinga SDM is unfortunate. I will demand that NSA be invoked in this case after meeting Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath so that no one dares to disturb social harmony in future,” he wrote on X.Speaking with The Wire, Tiwari stood by his concerns regarding Muslim men participating in the iftar party in an area “which has an SSB (Sashastra Seema Bal or paramilitary) camp in close proximity”, describing the incident as a “huge lapse on part of our security agencies”. However, he did not have any evidence for his allegations other than visuals of the iftar party doing the rounds on social media.When asked about evidence regarding non-vegetarian meals being cooked and eaten at the spot, he told The Wire, “One can see the kebab in photos very clearly. Since kebab was among the food eaten, as is established by seekein (bamboo toothpicks) in photos, it was these remains only that were left behind.”Referring to a video of Muslim men who can be seen carrying a vessel towards the river bank, Tiwari said, “You can see them carrying a bhagona (cooking pot), were they cooking khajoor or a fruit there? So it’s clearly evident that a non-veg meal was cooked there, which is visible in photos as well as videos.”“We never visit their mosques, so why did they come to our religious place with the intention of cooking non-veg meals?” he remarked, claiming that the incident was “part of a plan”.The viral videos of the iftar party, seen by The Wire, do not show any cooking or the improper disposal of remains.Complainant: ‘It became an issue of honour’Like Tiwari, the complainant in this case, Maharaj Harisharnanand, too reiterated claims about Muslim men “carrying a bhagona (cooking pot) with smoke seen from the spot” as proof lending credence to the claim related to non-veg meals.“After receiving information, initially I was not thinking about any action in this matter but then they (Muslim men) posted videos on the internet. So then it became an issue of garima (honour),” Harisharnanand told The Wire.On being asked about having any proof regarding his allegations about non-veg meal, he said, “Videos which have gone viral – that itself is the evidence.”When this reporter further asked Harisharnanand whether there is any evidence related to the allegation of non-veg meal remains being thrown in water, he said, “Only videos of them eating meals are there. There’s no other separate visual.”According to a report published by the Indian Express on April 1 which had a response from a family member of the accused, “The men wanted to hold iftar in an open area, and chose the Suhelwa spot as they had visited it earlier. They carried cooked food, fruits and water. Not even a bottle cap was left behind.”The Wire has learnt that as of April 1, all the eight Muslim men accused in this case, including those who were out on bail, have fled their homes.Speaking with the local media yesterday, Jamal Ahmed – who was arrested twice in connection with the case – said, “My family had fears that those accused in this case might get killed in a police encounter, so we left our homes.”“The distance between the spot where we organised the iftar party and the temple is three km. An SSB official had even asked us to open our vessel and checked the content before we proceeded for the iftari. We have been falsely implicated in this case,” said Ahmed, breaking into tears while talking to the reporter.Jamal Ahmed speaking with local media on April 2.Despite repeated efforts, The Wire could not speak with families of the Muslim men implicated in this case.Police versionWhen asked about two rounds of police crackdown in this case, first on March 20 followed by arrests on March 24, Station House Officer of the Sirsiya police station Shailkant Upadhyay told The Wire, “Since two cases were registered, the second set of arrests were in connection with offences related to the Indian Forest Act.”Regarding the evidence gathered so far by the police, Upadhyay refused to comment further on the investigation.Sources familiar with the ongoing police investigation told The Wire, “During inspection of the incident spot, ash was found among the stones along with burnt wood lying around. Testimonies of disciples from the Sonpathri Ashram also suggest that they (Muslim men) were told not to carry out such activity there.”When we contacted the SP’s office, PRO Vishal Singh said, “Arrests on both the days were carried out as per procedure.” On being asked whether there was any political pressure after the BJP Yuva Morcha president met the SP, leading to more arrests by March 24 afternoon, PRO Vishal Singh said, “Due procedure was followed in the case as per investigation conducted by the police.”On the issue of whether those named in the FIR had entered into a prohibited area while celebrating iftar, DFO (Divisional Forest Officer) Balrampur, Gaurav Garg, whose jurisdiction includes the forested area near Sonpathri Ashram, said, “Prima facie, it appears that area is forest land which also comes under wildlife jurisdiction. No one is allowed to enter the sanctuary area unless permission is given by authorities.”“Any kind of meat or any kind of chicken is not allowed inside a forest area or wildlife sanctuary,” he added, citing concerns related to poaching and hunting in such sensitive zones.Legal validity of the caseThe Shravasti case is the second incident in Uttar Pradesh where an iftar party has come under the scanner of the police this year.On March 16, fourteen Muslim men were arrested in Varanasi after a complaint was filed by the local BJP Yuva Morcha president, Rajat Jaiswal, for allegedly consuming non-vegetarian food and throwing remains in the river Ganga during an iftar party.Will such FIRs be able to stand the scrutiny of courts?According to Lucknow-based lawyer Areeb Uddin Ahmed, who is currently practising in the Allahabad high court, “At the trial stage, these FIRs will face serious scrutiny on multiple grounds: (a) absence of direct or forensic evidence linking the accused to the alleged acts; (b) reliance on social media visuals without proper certification or provenance; (c) the alleged pressure by a political functionary (BJP Yuva Morcha president) could be raised as evidence of malicious prosecution and violation of due process, potentially leading to proceedings being stayed or FIRs quashed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.”Ahmed also points towards a dangerous precedent being set by potential misuse of Section 196(2) BNS (related to intentional insult or provocation with intent to cause breach of peace).“For the offence to be made out, there must be evidence of deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings. In the absence of any physical proof (e.g., remains, witness to the act of throwing), and if the visuals merely show consumption of non-veg food (which is not per se illegal), the FIR may be vulnerable to quashing for lack of prima facie material. This suggests a possible misuse of Section 196(2) when invoked without credible evidence of intent to insult a specific religious group’s sentiments,” he added.