Swami Avimukteshwaranand (PTI photo) NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Allahabad high court’s order granting anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand in a POCSO case over allegations of sexually assaulting a minor.A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari challenging the lower court’s decision granting pre-arrest bail to the seer.The Allahabad high court in March granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari in a POCSO case alleging sexual exploitation of minor disciples.Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, while allowing their plea, directed both the accused and the complainant, Ashutosh Maharaj, not to speak to the media about the case. The court had earlier stayed Avimukteshwaranand’s arrest on February 27 and reserved its verdict after directing the applicants to cooperate with the investigation.The FIR was registered at Prayagraj’s Jhunsi police station on the directions of a POCSO court. It alleged that several ‘batuks’ (young disciples) were sexually exploited by the accused.In his 22-page order, Justice Sinha flagged multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The court observed that the alleged victims had not initially informed their natural guardians and instead narrated the incidents to the complainant, a stranger, which it said was not consistent with the normal course of human conduct. It also questioned the delay in lodging the FIR.Rejecting the state’s contention that the accused should have first approached the sessions court for anticipatory bail, the bench held that the circumstances of the case justified directly moving the high court. It noted that the FIR had been lodged pursuant to directions issued by a special POCSO judge on an application filed under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).The court further pointed to discrepancies in the timeline presented by the complainant. 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. Asked about the delay, Maharaj told the court he had been occupied with religious rituals. The bench, however, noted that during the same period he had filed another legal application relating to a separate alleged offence.Justice Sinha also highlighted what he described as material improvements in the victims’ statements. While the FIR alleged that the incidents took place between January 2025 and February 2026 during the Maha Kumbh and Magh Mela in Prayagraj, one of the victims later claimed the assault had occurred in June 2024 at an ashram in Madhya Pradesh.The court additionally noted that educational records showed the alleged victims were students at an institution in Hardoi rather than residents of the ashram. Medical examinations found no external injuries, while doctors gave an inconclusive opinion, stating only that sexual assault could not be ruled out.The complainant’s counsel also argued that Avimukteshwaranand’s claim to be the Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth was disputed. The bench, however, said that issue did not fall within the scope of the proceedings before it.About the AuthorTOI News DeskThe TOI News Desk comprises a dedicated and tireless team of journalists who operate around the clock to deliver the most current and comprehensive news and updates to the readers of The Times of India worldwide. With an unwavering commitment to excellence in journalism, our team is at the forefront of gathering, verifying, and presenting breaking news, in-depth analysis, and insightful reports on a wide range of topics. The TOI News Desk is your trusted source for staying informed and connected to the ever-evolving global landscape, ensuring that our readers are equipped with the latest developments that matter most.”Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosGovt Considers Air Force Support For NEET Retest Security Amid Paper Leak InvestigationDK Shivakumar Reaches Delhi After Siddaramaiah Resignation Sparks Karnataka Power Shift | WatchAmit Shah Confirms Detention Centres In Bengal, Vows Crackdown On Illegal Infiltrators | WatchSonam Wangchuk Fires Back At Ladakh LG Over ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ Remarks’Trauma Care Part Of Right To Life’: SC Orders 112 As One Unified Emergency Response NumberAfter 20 Years In Saudi Prison, Kerala Man Abdul Rahim Returns HomePatna Builder Gifts CM Portrait, Internet Reacts With “Majnu Bhai Would Be Proud” JokesTension At West Bengal Border As Migrants Wait For Return Amid Holding Centre OperationsTwisha Sharma Death Case: CBI Arrests Mother-In-Law & Retired Judge Giribala SinghFrom Brazil To India: Inside Gujarat’s Biggest Cocaine Seizure123PhotostoriesWhat is Solo, that PM Narendra Modi called modern-day ‘Sanjeevani’: 4 ways to include it in daily meals7 railway stations in India with unbelievable colonial history6 things every traveller (and every person) should know about snake bitesPeople judge you within seconds, say psychologists- here’s what they notice firstLove quote of the day by Toni Morrison: “Love is or it ain’t…””Egg is the worst thing you can…” Sadhguru shares 3 traditional South Indian vegetarian dishes rich in protein and vitamin B12Staying up late every night? Neurologist warns your bedtime habits could quietly raise the risk of a mini-stroke7 coastal towns in India offering strong potential for real estate investment5 foods that become surprisingly tasty when slightly burntNever say these 6 things to a child123Hot PicksDhanendra KumarNew Labour CodeCOMEDK UGET resultCBSE 12th re-evaluationPunjab election resultStrait of HormuzGold price predictionTop TrendingPatna Boat AccidentGujarat Drug BustNEET UG Paper LeakNorth India HeatwaveGrocery price hikeBengaluru Ebola CaseUK NEETRahul GandhiIndian mango exportsFuel price hike
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Allahabad high court’s order granting anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand in a POCSO case over allegations of sexually assaulting a minor.A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari challenging the lower court’s decision granting pre-arrest bail to the seer.The Allahabad high court in March granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari in a POCSO case alleging sexual exploitation of minor disciples.Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, while allowing their plea, directed both the accused and the complainant, Ashutosh Maharaj, not to speak to the media about the case. The court had earlier stayed Avimukteshwaranand’s arrest on February 27 and reserved its verdict after directing the applicants to cooperate with the investigation.The FIR was registered at Prayagraj’s Jhunsi police station on the directions of a POCSO court. It alleged that several ‘batuks’ (young disciples) were sexually exploited by the accused.In his 22-page order, Justice Sinha flagged multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The court observed that the alleged victims had not initially informed their natural guardians and instead narrated the incidents to the complainant, a stranger, which it said was not consistent with the normal course of human conduct. It also questioned the delay in lodging the FIR.Rejecting the state’s contention that the accused should have first approached the sessions court for anticipatory bail, the bench held that the circumstances of the case justified directly moving the high court. It noted that the FIR had been lodged pursuant to directions issued by a special POCSO judge on an application filed under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).The court further pointed to discrepancies in the timeline presented by the complainant. 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. Asked about the delay, Maharaj told the court he had been occupied with religious rituals. The bench, however, noted that during the same period he had filed another legal application relating to a separate alleged offence.Justice Sinha also highlighted what he described as material improvements in the victims’ statements. While the FIR alleged that the incidents took place between January 2025 and February 2026 during the Maha Kumbh and Magh Mela in Prayagraj, one of the victims later claimed the assault had occurred in June 2024 at an ashram in Madhya Pradesh.The court additionally noted that educational records showed the alleged victims were students at an institution in Hardoi rather than residents of the ashram. Medical examinations found no external injuries, while doctors gave an inconclusive opinion, stating only that sexual assault could not be ruled out.The complainant’s counsel also argued that Avimukteshwaranand’s claim to be the Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth was disputed. The bench, however, said that issue did not fall within the scope of the proceedings before it.
