An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the Allahabad High Court order granting anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a POCSO case, arguing the court exceeded bail-stage limits by assessing evidence meant for trial.
An appeal has been lodged in the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court’s recent order that granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a matter registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The appeal, filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari, contends that the allegations are serious and attract penalties that can extend to life imprisonment, and therefore anticipatory bail in such cases should be granted only in the rarest of circumstances.
It also raises concern about the accused’s influence, asserting that his stature and following create a real threat of interference with the investigation, including the potential to influence witnesses and victims.
The plea points to alleged non-compliance with court-imposed restrictions on media engagement, noting that the accused gave media appearances despite the High Court’s direction to refrain from doing so.
The challenge clarifies that it is limited to the legal principles applicable to the grant of anticipatory bail in grave offences under special statutes like the POCSO Act and does not address the factual merits of the allegations.
The appeal has been filed through advocate Saurabh Ajay Gupta.
A Special POCSO Court had, last month, ordered registration of an FIR against the religious leader over allegations that two minor boys were sexually abused at a camp in Prayagraj.
The complaint was filed by Shankuri Peethadheshwar Ashutosh Maharaj.
After the FIR was lodged, the accused sought anticipatory bail from the High Court.
The High Court granted relief while also expressing serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
The High Court observed that the victims allegedly narrated the incident to the complainant, a stranger, rather than to their natural guardians, which the court regarded as inconsistent with normal human conduct. It also questioned a six-day delay in filing the FIR, noting that the informant attributed the delay to engagement in religious rituals.
The court further pointed out that the victims had remained with the informant and were not promptly handed over to their parents or to authorities. It also criticized the victims’ media interviews as being contrary to established procedure under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice framework.
Additionally, the High Court expressed reservations about the medical evidence and noted that the allegations emerged against the background of a prior dispute between the accused and local authorities over arrangements at the Sangam during Mauni Amavasya.
The appeal before the Supreme Court argues that the High Court exceeded the limited scope of scrutiny appropriate at the anticipatory bail stage by venturing into matters of evidence that should be examined at trial.
According to the plea, once an FIR has been registered pursuant to judicial directions and the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applies, the Court was required to apply established parameters for bail and not conduct a detailed evaluation of the prosecution’s case.
On the High Court’s observation regarding disclosure to the complainant rather than to guardians, the plea contends that the incident occurred during the Magh Mela when chaotic conditions prevented the minor victims from reaching their families.
It states that the complainant was known to the victims and present at the scene and that the disclosure was made to him out of familiarity and trust, making it a natural course of conduct rather than an unusual one.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Swami Avimukteshwaranand