The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand in a Prayagraj POCSO case, which involved allegations of sexual assault of minors and sought cancellation of the relief granted.
The Supreme Court upheld the anticipatory bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari and also raised questions about his earlier inaction.
The Bench asked,
“You were there earlier. You knew about it. What did you do?. You knew about the offence? After the offence is committed. You went to police for some other purpose. Why did you not inform police about this?”
The appellant’s counsel responded that,
“I was severely hurt,”
The bench said,
“Sorry, we are not going to interfere,”
Earlier, On March 25, the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari in a case filed against them under the POCSO Act.
The high court, however, barred both the first informant and the applicants Swami Avimukteshwaranand and the disciple from making any statements to the media on the matter.
It also ordered both parties to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The case is based on an FIR registered at the Jhunsi police station in Prayagraj after directions from a POCSO court, alleging that the accused sexually exploited several batuks (young disciples).
The Court, however, rejected the appeal.
Brahmachari’s appeal argued that the allegations against the accused are grave in nature, carrying punishment of up to life imprisonment, and that anticipatory bail in such cases should be granted only in the rarest of circumstances.
The FIR was registered at Jhunsi police station in Prayagraj on the directions of a POCSO court. The complaint alleged that the accused sexually exploited several “batuks” (young disciples).
The court noted that the alleged victims did not initially inform their natural guardians. Instead, they allegedly narrated the incidents to the complainant who was described as a stranger something the court said was not in line with the normal course of human conduct. It also questioned the delay in lodging the FIR.
Rejecting the State’s submission that the accused ought to have first approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, the bench held that the circumstances of the case justified approaching the High Court directly. It further observed that the FIR had been lodged pursuant to directions issued by a special POCSO judge on an application moved under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The court also pointed to discrepancies in the complainant’s account. While the alleged victims were said to have informed Ashutosh Maharaj about the incidents on January 18, 2026, the police were approached only six days later. When questioned about the delay, Maharaj told the court that he had been occupied with religious rituals. The bench, however, noted that during the same period he had filed another legal application related to a separate alleged offence.
Justice Sinha further highlighted what he described as material improvements in the victims’ statements. Although the FIR alleged that the incidents occurred between January 2025 and February 2026 during the Maha Kumbh and Magh Mela in Prayagraj, one victim later claimed that the assault took place in June 2024 at an ashram in Madhya Pradesh. The court also remarked that educational records indicated the alleged victims were students at a Hardoi institution rather than residents of the ashram.
Regarding medical evidence, the court noted that medical examinations found no external injuries, and doctors gave only an inconclusive opinion stating that sexual assault could not be ruled out. Counsel for the complainant also argued that Avimukteshwaranand’s claim to be the Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth was disputed.
However, the bench said that this issue was outside the scope of the proceedings before it.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Swami Avimukteshwaranand