Muslim Men Rearrested in UP’s Shravasti for Iftar Gathering Near Ashram Under Pressure from BJP Youth Leader

Eight Muslim men in Uttar Pradesh’s Shravasti district were re-arrested on 24 March 2026, at the behest of BJP Yuva Morcha District President Hariom Tiwari. This comes days after the men secured bail in an iftar gathering case, with allegations emerging that political intervention influenced police action despite limited evidence and disputed legal grounds.

The arrests relate to an iftar gathering held on 19 March 2026 near the Sonpathri Ashram, located inside the Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary in Shravasti district, close to the India–Nepal border. The case gained attention after a second round of arrests took place soon after Tiwari met senior district officials.

According to a report by The Wire, Tiwari first met Shravasti District Magistrate Ashwini Kumar Pandey and later Superintendent of Police Rahul Bhati on the morning of 24 March. Tiwari later said he was assured that strict action would be taken. Police arrested six Muslim men between 1-2pm the same day.

Those arrested included Jamal Ahmed, Irfan Ahmed and Sufiyan from Shravasti, along with Shakir, Sheru Ahmed and Shamshad Ali from neighbouring Bahraich district. Jamal Ahmed and Irfan Ahmed had earlier been arrested and granted bail on 20 March 2026 in connection with the same incident.

The first FIR was filed at 10:15pm by Maharaj Harisharnanand, a priest at the Sonpathri Ashram. In his complaint, he alleged that 15-20 people were having a non-vegetarian meal near a water stream used by the ashram for cooking, drinking and washing idols. He claimed the act hurt religious sentiments and alleged that leftovers were thrown into the water.

The accused were booked under Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relates to promoting enmity between groups and acts prejudicial to social harmony.

Around 20 minutes later, a second FIR was registered by forest official Radheyshyam Yadav. The complaint alleged that 15-20 persons had entered the forest area without permission, lit a fire and cooked food, thereby damaging flora and fauna. This FIR invoked provisions under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Police arrested four individuals: Jamal Ahmed, Irfan Ahmed, Imran Ahmed alias Immi and Zahir Khan. All four were granted bail the same day by the SDM court.

However, on 24 March, police carried out a second round of arrests. Jamal Ahmed and Irfan Ahmed were arrested again, while Imran Ahmed and Zahir Khan were reported absconding during the second crackdown. The total number of arrests in the case rose to eight.

According to investigating officer Shahab Rao, the six men arrested on 24 March were granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate court on 28 March 2026.

Following the first round of bail, Tiwari publicly demanded stricter action. In a social media post, he criticised the bail order and called for invocation of the National Security Act (NSA), stating he would raise the issue with Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

Tiwari also claimed that the iftar gathering took place near a sensitive border area and suggested it could be linked to a “planned conspiracy” or even espionage activity. He acknowledged that his claims were based primarily on viral videos circulating on social media.

When asked about evidence of non-vegetarian food being cooked, Tiwari cited visuals showing kebabs and bamboo toothpicks, and a video showing individuals carrying a cooking vessel. However, videos reviewed in the case reportedly did not show cooking activity or disposal of food remains.

The first complainant, Harisharnanand, also acknowledged that there was no visual evidence of food remains being thrown into the water. He stated that the issue escalated after videos of the gathering were posted online, describing it as a matter of “honour”.

See Also: 14 Arrested in Varanasi for ‘Iftar Party’ Atop Boat on Ganga, Citing ‘Hurt Religious Sentiments’

Family members of the accused stated that the group had brought cooked food, fruits and water to the spot and did not cook or leave waste behind. According to one account, the group had previously visited the location and chose it as an open space for iftar.

Jamal Ahmed, one of the men arrested twice, told local media that the group was falsely implicated. He also said an Sashastra Seema Bal official had inspected their vessel before they proceeded to the location. Ahmed further claimed that his family feared a possible police encounter and had fled their homes following the arrests. Reports indicated that as of 1 April 2026, all eight accused had left their residences.

Police officials maintained that arrests were carried out according to procedure. Sirsiya Station House Officer Shailkant Upadhyay stated that the second set of arrests was linked to the forest-related FIR. Sources involved in the investigation said ash and burnt wood were found at the site, and statements from ashram disciples suggested the group had been asked not to conduct activities in the area.

Divisional Forest Officer Gaurav Garg said the area falls under wildlife jurisdiction and entry without permission is not allowed. He also stated that meat is prohibited in wildlife sanctuaries due to concerns related to poaching and hunting.

Legal experts have questioned the strength of the case. Lucknow based lawyer, Areeb Uddin Ahmed said the FIRs may face scrutiny due to lack of direct evidence and reliance on social media visuals. He noted that for charges under Section 196(2) of the BNS to be held, there must be evidence of deliberate intent to outrage religious sentiments. In the absence of physical evidence or verified visuals, he said the FIRs could be challenged and potentially quashed. He also stated that alleged political pressure could be cited as malicious prosecution and violation of due process.

The Shravasti case is the second such incident in Uttar Pradesh this year. On 16 March 2026, fourteen Muslim men were arrested in Varanasi after a complaint by a BJP Yuva Morcha leader alleging consumption of non-vegetarian food during an iftar gathering atop a boat on the Ganga.

The two cases closely resemble each other: in both instances complaints were based on social media videos, complainants alleged hurt religious sentiments due to non-veg food waste being dumped in the rivers, and no concrete evidence of the dumping has been produced. In the Varanasi case, the fourteen accused remain in custody after being denied bail.

[DS]

Suggested Reading: