The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand in a POCSO case, noting delays in FIR, medical report issues, and procedural violations. The Court said the allegations require “greater care and caution” and granted relief from arrest.
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, a well-known religious leader from Uttar Pradesh, in a case registered against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The case was registered after a Special POCSO Court last month directed the police to lodge an FIR to investigate allegations that the religious leader had sexually abused two minor boys during a camp.
As per media reports, the Special Court passed the order based on a complaint filed by Shankuri Peethadheshwar Ashutosh Maharaj, who is also a plaintiff in the Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Eidgah title dispute. After the FIR was registered by the Prayagraj police, Swami Avimukteshwaranand approached the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail to avoid arrest in the matter.
Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, while hearing the anticipatory bail plea, examined several aspects of the case and raised concerns regarding the manner in which the complaint was made and how the allegations were reported.
The Court noted that the victims did not narrate the alleged incident to their parents or natural guardians but instead told the complainant, who was a stranger to them. The Court found this unusual and observed that such conduct did not follow normal human behaviour.
The Court stated,
“the victims not narrating the incident to their natural guardian and narrating the same to the complainant, who is a stranger, is not consistent with normal course of human conduct and behaviour.”
The High Court also questioned the delay in registering the FIR. The Court noted that the victims had allegedly informed the complainant about the incident earlier, but the police complaint was filed after a delay of several days.
The Court recorded,
“The victims have stated that they had informed the first informant about the commission of the offence on 18.01.2026 and therefore, there is delay of 6 days in lodging information to the police for the first time and for this, the first informant has assigned the reason that he was engaged in “Pooja / Yagya”,”
the Court noted.
Another important issue highlighted by the Court was that after the FIR was registered, the minor victims were interviewed by various Hindi news channels, which is not allowed under the law. The Court strongly criticised this and said that such actions were against the procedure established under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
The Court observed,
“The victims were found giving interviews to leading Hindi News Channels, which is highly condemnable and deplorable in the facts and circumstances of the case and not consistent with law and procedure related to POCSO cases,”
it said.
The Court also examined the medical evidence in the case. It noted that the medical report did not find any external injuries on the victims and that the doctor had not given a final conclusion regarding the alleged sexual assault. The Court also pointed out that the medical examination of the accused had not been conducted, which is necessary in such cases.
The Court stated,
“The medical report as prepared by the doctor does not find any external injury on the person of the victims and it has been opined that the sexual assault cannot be ruled out and FSL report has been sought, which clearly shows that the conclusive finding has not been given by the doctor regarding commission of sexual assault on the victims. The medical examination of the applicants have not been conducted, which are required in cases involving sexual assault,”
the Bench said.
The High Court further noted that there had been a dispute between the accused and the State authorities earlier, and the date of that dispute was the same date on which the complainant claimed to have received information about the alleged offence. The Court said that this aspect required careful examination.
The Court observed,
“The date of first informant receiving information regarding commission of the offence from victims and the dispute that arose between the applicant no.1 and the administration regarding taking of bath in Sangam on the holy occasion of Mauni Amavasya is the same i.e. 18.01.2026, therefore, the facts are required to be looked into with greater care and caution,”
it said.
Earlier, on February 27, the High Court had granted interim protection from arrest to the accused. With the present order, the Court directed that if the accused is arrested in the case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions that may be imposed by the Court.
Senior Advocates Dilip Kumar, along with Advocates Rajshri Gupta, Sudhanshu Kumar and Varadh Nath, appeared for Swami Avimukteshwaranand. The State was represented by Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, Government Advocate Patanjali Mishra and Additional Government Advocate Roopak Chaubey. Advocate Reena N Singh appeared for the complainant.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Swami Avimukteshwaranand
