Allahabad High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand in POCSO Case Linked to Magh Mela

By Rajesh Pandey

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act concerning the alleged sexual abuse of minor students (Batuks) at a camp during the recently concluded Magh Mela in Prayagraj.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the Court directed Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, Mukundanand Brahmachari, the minor students involved in the case, as well as the first informant Ashutosh Brahmachari, to refrain from giving any interviews to the media regarding the matter while the investigation and trial remain pending.

In a detailed 22-page order, Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha raised questions about certain aspects of the prosecution’s case, including the conduct of the minor complainants.

The Court noted that it appeared unusual that the alleged victims chose to disclose the incidents to a person described as a stranger, namely the first informant, rather than informing their parents or legal guardians.

The High Court also rejected the State’s objection regarding the maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea, wherein it was argued that the applicants should have first approached the Sessions Court.

Justice Sinha observed that since the FIR was registered on the directions of the Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Prayagraj, based on an application moved by the informant under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), there existed exceptional circumstances justifying the direct filing of the anticipatory bail application before the High Court.

While examining the facts of the case, the Court pointed out certain inconsistencies. It noted that although the alleged victims claimed to have informed the first informant about the incident on January 18, 2026, the police were informed only six days later.

When questioned about the delay, the informant stated that he was occupied with religious rituals such as pooja and yagya.

However, the Court observed that during this period, the informant had filed another application on January 21 relating to a separate alleged offence under Section 109 and other provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court also took note of apparent changes in the statements of the alleged victims.

While the FIR mentioned that the incidents occurred between January 2025 and February 2026 during the Mahakumbh and Magh Mela in Prayagraj, one of the victims later alleged that the incident had taken place earlier, in June 2024, at an ashram in Madhya Pradesh.

Further, the Court observed that educational records indicated that the minors were institutional students in Hardoi and not residents of any ashram as claimed.

The medical examination report did not find any external injuries on the alleged victims, and the doctor’s opinion stated that sexual assault could neither be confirmed nor ruled out conclusively.

During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General and counsel for the informant strongly questioned the credentials of Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, submitting a voluminous 796-page judgment of a Division Bench as well as proceedings before the Supreme Court to argue that his claim to the position of Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth is disputed.

However, the High Court clarified that the issue of whether the applicant is the recognised Shankaracharya was not relevant for adjudicating the anticipatory bail application.

The Court also expressed concern that after the FIR was registered, statements of the alleged victims were recorded and interviews of the minors were aired on several Hindi news channels, which appeared to violate the safeguards prescribed under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act regarding the protection of identity and privacy of minors.

Additionally, the Court observed that the date on which the informant claimed to have received information about the alleged offence coincided with a dispute between Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and the administration regarding taking a holy dip at the Sangam on the occasion of Mauni Amavasya, January 18, 2026.

The Court noted that these circumstances required scrutiny during the course of investigation.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, while directing that the matter be examined cautiously during the ongoing investigation and trial.