Allahabad High Court grants anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand in POCSO case

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday (March 25, 2026) granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, in a case registered against him in Prayagraj under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Noting several inconsistencies and procedural concerns, the court held that protection from arrest was warranted at this stage.

The FIR against Mr. Saraswati and one of his aides, Mukundanand Giri, was registered on the directions of a special court in Prayagraj. On February 21, the court ordered the police to act on a complaint filed by Ashutosh Brahmachari and two minors, aged 14 and 17, who alleged sexual abuse by the accused during the recent Magh Mela in Prayagraj. The proceedings were initiated after a petition was filed before the Special Judge alleging inaction by local police on prior written complaints addressed to senior officials.

The religious leader termed the case against him as ‘politically motivated’ and that he has been falsely implicated. He moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in the matter. Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha had previously granted interim bail to Mr. Saraswati and Mr. Giri last month. He, on Wednesday (March 25), announced the final order on the anticipatory bail.

‘Conduct of victims’

The court noted a delay in the reporting of the case. It said the informant claimed the incident happened on January 18, but the complaint was lodged only 6 days later. An earlier complaint filed on January 21 had made no mention of the alleged sexual offences, the court observed.

The court found it significant that the minors were not placed in the custody of their parents or appropriate authorities until late February. They had remained with the informant for a considerable period. It also remarked that the victims’ statements contained variations regarding the time and place of occurrence, with references extending beyond the period and location mentioned in the FIR.

Another factor that the court noted was the conduct surrounding the case, including media interviews given by both the accused and the victims. The court described such exposures as inconsistent with established safeguards under the POCSO framework.

Majority and inconclusive evidence

The medical evidence, the court observed, was inconclusive. While the medical report did not rule out sexual assault, it recorded no external injuries and did not provide a definitive finding. The court also noted that medical examination of the accused had not been conducted. The court also took note of submissions that one of the alleged victims may have attained majority during the period mentioned in the FIR, and that educational records indicated the minors were not residing in the accused’s ashram.