Holy Disputes and Shadowed Claims: Allahabad HC Grants Bail in Explosive POCSO Case Against Swami

In a closely watched decision, the Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to prominent religious figure Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati , self-proclaimed Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, and his disciple Swami Pratyakchaitanya Mukundanand Giri in a high-profile POCSO case alleging sexual assault on minors during Prayagraj's Magh Mela. Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha , sitting in Court No. 69, delivered the ruling on March 25, 2026, converting interim protection into full anticipatory bail amid media frenzy and procedural battles.

The case, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2198 of 2026 , stems from Case Crime No. 58 of 2026 at Jhunsi Police Station, Prayagraj, invoking Section 351(3) BNS and POCSO Sections 5(1), 6, 3, 4(2), 16, 17 . The FIR followed a Special POCSO Court's directive on February 21, 2026, after complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari Maharaj —a figure linked to religious disputes like Krishna Janmabhoomi—claimed police inaction on his earlier complaints.

From Mela Camps to Courtroom Clashes: The Timeline Unravels

The allegations paint a grim picture: two minor boys, aged around 14 and 17.5, supposedly endured penetrative sexual assault at the swami's Magh Mela camp (January-February 2026) and Mahakumbh (2025), disguised as religious rituals. Ashutosh Brahmachari, positioning himself as the victims' guardian, says they confided in him on January 18, 2026 —the same day a public spat erupted between the swami and authorities over bathing rights at Sangam during Mauni Amavasya.

Yet cracks appeared early. The first police report came six days later on January 24 , with the informant citing "pooja/yagya" as the delay excuse—odd, as he filed a separate complaint on January 21 about a dispute with the swami, omitting any abuse mention. The FIR itself materialized only on February 21 post-court order under Section 173(4) BNSS . Victims stayed with the complainant until a Child Welfare Committee handed them to natural guardians on February 25 .

Media reports highlight the swami's vocal criticisms of governments, including the Ram Temple timing, adding layers to the feud narrative. Post-interim stay on February 27, both sides hit news channels, though the court later slammed victim exposures.

Defense Strikes at Credibility, Prosecution Pushes Heinous Nature

Applicants' Arsenal : Senior counsel Dilip Kumar (assisted by others) called it a vendetta against the "revered guru." Key jabs: -

Victims from Hardoi school, never ashram residents (backed by certificates). -

Timeline flips: FIR pins 2025-2026 Prayagraj; statements add June 2024 at Narsinghpur (MP) and Badrinath. One victim's DOB ( August 1, 2006 ) makes him major during FIR period. -

No victim IO statements under Section 175(3) BNSS ; improper custody with complainant (21 prior cases). -

Medicals inconclusive—no injuries after 40-day delay; oral assault signs wouldn't linger (per Modi's Jurisprudence). Accused unexamined. -

Delayed reporting amid prior spat; media hype blocks sessions court speed.

They invoked Harshad S. Mehta (special judge's dual role), Ankit Bharti (special circumstances for direct HC approach), and others for jurisdiction.

State's Counterpunch : AAG Manish Goyal objected to direct HC plea, citing hierarchy ( Jagdeo Prasad , Mohammed Rasal C. ). Argued influence risk (swami's rallies, interviews), victim statements under Sections 180/183 BNSS support FIR, independent witnesses confirm absences, Section 29 POCSO presumption. Pen drive showed post-hearing activities.

Informant's Fire : Counsel Reena N. Singh and Ashutosh warned of tampering, cited his train attack (FIR blamed on swami's aide), yatras near victim areas. Pushed Section 29 bar.

Navigating Presumptions and Procedures: Court's Sharp Scrutiny

Justice Sinha first upheld direct jurisdiction as "special circumstances"—FIR from POCSO Special Judge (sessions rank), per Ankit Bharti , Manjeet Singh , amicus in Mohammed Rasal C. Overruled affidavit technicalities as "handmaid of justice."

On merits, he dissected doubts without mini-trial: - Delhi HC in Dharmander Singh : Section 29 presumption kicks post-charge framing, not bail stage (echoed in Monish ). - Sushila Aggarwal guidelines: Bail on nature, role, tampering risk—not blanket denial in POCSO. Rejected Sumitha Pradeep , Rajballav Prasad as trial-stage.

Noted victims' media interviews "highly condemnable," unusual confiding in stranger, no accused medicals.

Court's Cutting Quotes: Doubts That Tipped the Scales

"The victims were found giving interviews to leading Hindi News Channels, which is highly condemnable and deplorable in the facts and circumstances of the case and not consistent with law and procedure related to POCSO cases." (Para 36)

"The victims not narrating the incident to their natural guardian and narrating the same to the first informant, who is a stranger... appears to be unusual and not consistent with a normal course of human conduct." (Para 37)

"Presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked at least before framing of charge by the learned Sessions Court." (Para 44, citing Dharmander Singh)

"No external injury has been found on the person of the victims... the conclusive finding has not been given by the doctor regarding commission of sexual assault." (Para 51(vii))

Bail with Strings: Liberty, Limits, and Lingering Probe

"The anticipatory bail application is allowed." Applicants get release on Rs. 50,000 bond + two sureties , with riders: no tampering/threats, cooperate, no India exit sans permission, media gag on all (applicants, victims, informant).

Prosecution can seek cancellation for breaches. Observations "limited... no bearing on investigation/trial." This balances child protection with bail rights, signaling courts won't rubber-stamp in POCSO sans scrutiny—potentially easing pre-trial arrests where evidence wobbles, but urging swift probes amid publicity perils.

As investigation rolls, the swami's disputed title (per prior HC orders, pending SC) fades behind legal focus: truth over titles.