Supreme Court upholds anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand in POCSO case

The Supreme Court on Friday 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 MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the appeal filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari and also questioned his initial inaction.

"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 Bench asked.

"I was severely hurt," the counsel for appellant replied.

However, the Court rejected the appeal.

The appeal filed by Brahmachari argued that the allegations against the accused are grave in nature, attracting punishment up to life imprisonment, and that anticipatory bail in such cases ought to be granted only in the rarest of circumstances.

The plea also flagged alleged non-compliance with court-imposed restraints on media engagement, pointing out that the accused appeared in media interactions despite directions by the High Court to refrain from the same.

A special POCSO court had directed the registration of an FIR against Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati over allegations of sexual abuse of two minor boys at a camp in Prayagraj. The complaint was filed by Shankuri Peethadheshwar Ashutosh Maharaj.

Following the FIR, Saraswati moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

The High Court granted relief while also raising serious doubts about the prosecution case.

The High Court noted that the victims allegedly narrated the incident to the complainant, a stranger, instead of their natural guardians, which it found inconsistent with normal human conduct. It also questioned a six-day delay in lodging the FIR and observed that the informant had attributed the delay to being engaged in religious rituals.

It further noted that the victims had remained in the company of the informant and were not immediately handed over to their parents or authorities. It also flagged that the victims had given media interviews, calling it contrary to established procedure under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice framework.

Additionally, the High Court also expressed reservations regarding the medical evidence and observed that the allegations arose in the backdrop of a prior dispute between the accused and local authorities relating to arrangements at the Sangam during Mauni Amavasya.

The complainant then moved the Supreme Court.

In his plea, he raised concerns over the accused’s influence, stating that his standing and following create a real apprehension of interference with the investigation, including the possibility of influencing witnesses and victims.

It was argued that the High Court exceeded the limited scope of scrutiny at the stage of anticipatory bail by entering into issues that are matters of evidence to be tested during trial.

According to the plea, once the FIR has been registered pursuant to judicial directions and a statutory presumption operates under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court was only required to apply settled parameters governing grant of bail, and not undertake a detailed assessment of the prosecution’s case.

On the High Court’s observation regarding disclosure of the matter to the complainant instead of guardians, the plea stated that the incident occurred during the Magh Mela when conditions were chaotic, preventing the minor victims from reaching their families.

It asserted that the complainant was known to the victims and present at the site and that the disclosure was made to him out of familiarity and trust, making it a natural course of conduct rather than an unusual one.

The appeal was filed through advocate Saurabh Ajay Gupta.

[Read Live Coverage]