Supreme Court Petition Challenges Anticipatory Bail Granted to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in POCSO Case
- Sakshi Mishra
- 7 days ago
- 3 min read
A legal battle over child protection and pre-arrest bail rights has reached India's highest court. Days after the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, an appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court against the order.
The case pertains to an FIR lodged at Jhunsi police station in Prayagraj following directions from a POCSO court, alleging sexual exploitation of several 'batuks' (young disciples) by the accused. The allegations involve two minor boys, aged around 14 and 17.5, who supposedly endured penetrative sexual assault at the Swami's Magh Mela camp between January and February 2026, and at Mahakumbh 2025, allegedly disguised as religious rituals. The anticipatory bail application arose from FIR No. 58 of 2026, lodged pursuant to an order of the Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Prayagraj, passed on an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, moved by the first informant. The FIR invoked serious provisions, including Sections 5(1), 6, 3, 4(2), 16, and 17 of the POCSO Act, as well as Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Allahabad High Court on March 25 granted anticipatory bail to Saraswati in the POCSO case, citing delay in filing of complaint by the informant and inconsistencies in the statements of the alleged victims. The court also extended the same relief to his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari. It's a 22-page order; the High Court rejected the State's argument that there is a statutory presumption of guilt against the accused under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The bench clarified that this presumption cannot be invoked at the pre-arrest stage before charges are actually framed. The High Court flagged several irregularities in the prosecution's conduct. The Court found that the victims had been informed on January 18, 2026, but the first information about the alleged offence was given to the police only on January 24, 2026, a six-day delay. The explanation provided was that the first informant had been engaged in "Pooja/Yagya." The court found this explanation questionable, noting that the first informant had already lodged another complaint on January 21, 2026, relating to an offence under Section 109 of the BNS, but had not disclosed the present allegations in that complaint. The court also flagged a significant coincidence in the timeline. The date the informant allegedly got to know about the abuse, January 18, 2026, was the same day a separate dispute arose between the accused and the local administration regarding bathing in the Sangam on the holy occasion of Mauni Amavasya. Additionally, the High Court took strong exception to media conduct in the matter. After registration of the FIR, the victims had been interviewed by leading Hindi news channels. The Court described this as "highly condemnable and deplorable in the facts and circumstances of the case and not consistent with law and procedure related to POCSO cases." Earlier, on February 27, the Allahabad High Court had granted interim protection from arrest to Swami Avimukteshwaranand and directed him to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. Spiritual leader Ashutosh Brahmachari Maharaj has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the anticipatory bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to Jyotish Peeth Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Mukundanand Giri. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the apex court seeking cancellation of the relief granted to the accused. The petition by Ashutosh Brahmachari has challenged the March 25 order, saying the High Court failed to adequately consider the severity of the allegations against Swami. The petition has also stated that Saraswati may influence the witnesses in the case. In his plea, the informant argued that the High Court erred in its decision, as the court effectively conducted a 'mini-trial' while evaluating the anticipatory bail application. With the matter now pending before the Supreme Court, the central issue will be whether the relief granted by the High Court should continue, particularly given the stringent framework of child protection laws and the seriousness of the accusations. The case raises an important legal question about the applicability of POCSO's statutory presumption of guilt at the pre-arrest bail stage, a matter that could have significant implications for how courts across India handle anticipatory bail applications in child sexual abuse cases going forward. The Allahabad High Court, while granting bail, had also emphasised that the investigation must proceed without external influence. Whether the Federal Supreme Court will uphold that order or cancel the bail protection remains to be seen, as both sides prepare to present their arguments before the apex court.
This article is based on reports from PTI, ANI, Live Law, and other credible legal news sources.
Comments