By Vickram Kilpady
When the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and another religious figure, it did so with observations that have sparked debate over both the allegations and the circumstances surrounding them.
In his order, Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha noted that it was inconsistent with normal human conduct that two underage victims—who alleged sexual exploitation by the seer and others—had confided in a relative stranger rather than their natural guardians, particularly given the gravity of the accusations.
The case has been registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). However, the Court pointed out that the medical report did not contain conclusive findings of sexual assault. According to the order, there were no external injuries recorded, and the required medical examinations had not been conducted in accordance with standard procedure.
Justice Sinha also cited judicial precedents, including a ruling by a Delhi High Court in Dharmander Singh vs Government of NCT Delhi (2020), and observations from the Supreme Court. These, the judge said, clarified that the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked before charges are formally framed by a trial court.
The bail application had been filed by Swami Avimukteshwaranand and Swami Pratyakchaitanya Mukundanand Giri, who sought protection from arrest. The seer has described the case as politically motivated, claiming he has been falsely implicated because of his public stature and outspoken views.
According to the prosecution, the complaint was filed by Ashutosh Brahmachari during the Magh Mela in January 2026 in Prayagraj. Brahmachari alleged that two male students from the seer’s ashram had informed him that they had been forced to perform oral sex by the seer and others. The alleged incidents were said to span multiple locations—including Badrinath and Narsinghpur—between 2024 and early 2026.
The FIR was registered following directions from the Special Judge under the POCSO Act in Prayagraj.
Brahmachari explained that the delay in submitting a detailed written complaint was due to his preoccupation with religious rituals during the mela. Yet, the Court order noted that the alleged victims were not actually students of the seer’s ashram school, but were enrolled at a Sanskrit school in Hardoi district of Uttar Pradesh.
Justice Sinha further observed that the victims had remained in continuous contact with the complainant and had not been placed in proper custody until late February 2026. The order also remarked that the victims had appeared in interviews on Hindi television channels, which the Court said violated procedures under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
The judge also drew attention to a curious coincidence. The date on which the complainant said he first learned of the alleged offences—January 18, 2026—was the same day a dispute erupted between the seer and the administration over his right to take a ceremonial dip at the Sangam on the occasion of Mauni Amavasya.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court concluded that a case for anticipatory bail had been made out. In the event of arrest, both accused are to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties of the same amount.
The Court also imposed strict conditions: the accused must not tamper with evidence, must appear before the trial court when required, must not attempt to influence proceedings, must not leave India without permission, and must refrain from speaking to the media about the case.
The state government opposed the plea. Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal argued that the applicants should first have approached the Sessions Court or the Special POCSO Court before moving the High Court.
Justice Sinha responded that Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita gives concurrent powers to both the High Court and the Sessions Court to entertain anticipatory bail pleas. Although judicial practice generally encourages applicants to approach the Sessions Court first, the High Court’s jurisdiction is not barred.
The prosecution also submitted pen drives containing video clips of the seer speaking publicly about the case and participating in a rally. The Court noted that while the seer had denied the allegations in those clips, the victims themselves had also spoken publicly on television—something the Court said runs contrary to procedures designed to protect minors.
The controversy comes against a backdrop of an escalating confrontation between the seer and the Uttar Pradesh administration earlier this year.
The post Faith, Power And Allegation appeared first on India Legal.