The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday strongly criticised Vachanananda Swamiji, Jagadguru of the Veerashaiva Lingayatha Panchamasali Peetha, while indicating that it would cancel the anticipatory bail granted to him in a case involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Justice M Nagaprasanna orally observed,

"You have not left the boys! The minor girls are not safer, minor boys also not safer."

The Court said that it would set aside the anticipatory bail order passed by the trial court and permit the Swamiji to seek regular bail.

"I will cancel; I will set aside this order. This bail could not have been granted. I will reserve liberty for regular bail," the judge said.

The Court clarified that filing of a chargesheet by itself does not result in the cancellation of anticipatory bail. However, it added that the manner in which bail had been granted warranted interference.

"Just because charge sheet is filed, anticipatory bail will not go. But the manner in which it is granted, I will set it aside. I will reserve liberty to secure bail...This anticipatory bail cannot remain, there can be no two thoughts about it...Such anticipatory bails cannot be granted at all. And it is what—sodomy. Bail cannot be given, that too this kind of bail! I've already passed an order on that," the Court said.

At one point of time, the Court noted that since the Swamiji was already enjoying the benefit of anticipatory bail, some protection could be continued for a limited period to enable him to approach the competent court for regular bail.

"The only thing is, since he has the benefit of anticipatory bail, right or wrong, 10 or 15 days, I will grant, let him seek regular bail."

On another complaint registered against the Swamiji, the Court said,

"How can I enter into it? I will be doing the same thing that the court (below) has done."

Appearing for the respondent, counsel submitted that the chargesheet had already been filed and sought a copy of the petition to place objections on record. He argued that the allegations stemmed from disputes among trustees of the mutt and pointed out that the Swamiji had been expelled from the institution.

"Prior to filing this petition they (trustees) held a press meet and stated that they were going to file a complaint against the respondent. That was the apprehension. I place those materials on record," counsel submitted.

It was further contended that the trustees had publicly announced their intention to lodge such complaints and that documents relating to the press conference would be produced before the court.

Senior Advocate DR Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent was already enjoying the benefit of the anticipatory bail. He suggested that if the respondent desired the matter to be heard on Monday, June 29, the Court could curtail the protection period to one week.

"It is a take it or leave it offer," Ravishankar submitted.

He also contended that apart from the bail order, no other documents had been produced and alleged that after the present petition was filed, the complainant had approached the police again, leading to registration of another complaint.

A special court in Davanagere had granted anticipatory bail to Vachanananda Swamiji on May 2, taking note of social media posts by a mutt trustee suggesting that attempts were being made to falsely implicate him amid an administrative dispute within the Peetha.

According to the Swamiji's plea before the special court, the Veerashaiva Lingayatha Panchamasali Peetha was established in 2008. Following the death of Dr Mahanta Shivacharya Swamiji in 2012, internal disputes arose regarding its administration. Swamiji claimed that after taking charge as Jagadguru, he began raising allegations of financial irregularities against trustees, resulting in hostility and attempts to remove him from the Peetha.

He further alleged that trustees had threatened through media interactions to foist a POCSO case against him by instigating parents of children staying at the mutt to lodge complaints. He also claimed that his involvement in the Panchamasali reservation movement had led to political hostility.

On May 7, the mother of an alleged victim lodged a complaint at Lakshmeshwar Police Station in Gadag district. A zero FIR was registered under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, along with Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), before being transferred to Harihar Rural Police Station on May 8.

The complaint alleged that on March 20, 2024, Swamiji sexually abused the complainant's son and other children. It further alleged that between 2021 and 2024, children residing at the mutt were subjected to sexual abuse, including being stripped naked before school, being compelled to massage Swamiji's private parts and being inappropriately touched.

The complaint further alleged that children who resisted were assaulted, threatened with death if they disclosed the incidents and deprived of food.