Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 477

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar And Another - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2198 of 2026
Decided On : 25-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri Prakash, Sr. Advocate, Rajrshi Gupta, Sudhanshu Kumar, Varad Nath.
For the Respondent: G.A.

The statutory presumption of guilt under sexual offence legislation is not triggered before the formal framing of charges. Courts must adjudicate bail requests based on the gravity of the offence, material sufficiency, and the likelihood of justice being obstructed rather than applying premature trial-stage presumptions.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 351(3) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3, 4(2), 5(1), 6, 16, 17 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Sections 173(4), 175(3), 180, 183, 482 - Anticipatory bail - Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and lower courts - Direct application to High Court permissible in special circumstances. (Paras 26, 28, 54)

(B) Statutory Presumption - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 29 - Whether applicable at pre-arrest or pre-charge stage - The presumption of guilt under Section 29 does not arise prior to the framing of charges as it would violate the constitutional guarantee of fair trial and shift the burden prematurely in bail proceedings. (Paras 44, 45, 46)

(C) Anticipatory Bail - Standards for Exercise of Discretion - Courts must balance the nature of gravity of the offence with the right to personal liberty, considering potential for evidence tampering and witness intimidation based on concrete facts rather than vague allegations. (Paras 49, 51)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought anticipatory bail following the registration of a criminal case for alleged sexual offences. The complaint was lodged following judicial direction, with significant delays noted in the reporting of the alleged incidents. The prosecution faced challenges regarding discrepancies in the timeline, locations mentioned, and the lack of medical evidence corroborating the sexual assault allegations. The complainant had initially filed reports regarding other matters without mentioning the current allegations.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that it could directly entertain the application due to extraordinary circumstances and the nature of the legal questions involved. It ruled that the presumption of guilt under special legislation cannot be invoked before charges are framed. Finding the investigation materials insufficient and noting significant procedural incongruities, the Court determined that the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the maintainability of a direct application for anticipatory bail before the High Court, the temporal applicability of the statutory presumption of guilt under special legislation, and whether the evidence warranted custodial interrogation.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumption of guilt is not triggered prior to the formal framing of charges; thus, bail must be adjudicated based on the assessment of the gravity of the offence, the material on record, and the likelihood of the accused obstructing justice, not based on presumptive guilt at the investigative stage.

Result: Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural initiation and records of bail application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. substantive arguments for anticipatory bail based on false implication. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. jurisdictional authority of high court for anticipatory bail. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. state opposition citing procedural barriers and serious criminal allegations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. informant's contentions regarding influence and witness intimidation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. concurrent jurisdiction regarding direct petition to high court. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. analysis of evidentiary discrepancies and testimonial consistency. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
8. application of evidentiary presumptions under section 29 pocso. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
9. judicial assessment of procedural fairness and case facts. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
10. grant of anticipatory bail subject to conditions. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Written submissions filed on behalf of the applicants and the State are taken on record. The first informant appeared on 17.03.2026 and submitted his written submissions with the delay condonation application stating therein that he was attacked with some identified person in a train when he came to Prayagraj, therefore, he could not file written submission within time. In the interest of justice, written submission along with two Volumes of documents filed by him are taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajshri Gupta, Sudhanshu Kumar and Shri Varad Nath, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Patanjali Mishra, learned Government Advocate and Shri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA-I for the State respondents and Ms.Reena N. Singh, leaned counsel for the first informant through Video Conferencing.

3. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.58 of 2026, under Sections 351(3) of B.N.S. and Sections 5(1), 6, 3, 4(2), 16 and 17 POCSO Act, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

Arguments on behalf of the Applicants

4. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after a direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Prayagraj on an application filed by the first informant U/s 173(4) of BNSS.

5. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that the allegations contained in the application under Section 173(4) of BNSS are wholly unbelievable as the victims have never been students of the applicant no.1 and they have never resided in his ashram as is evident from the Educational Certificate, which is from one of the School of District Hardoi and the victims studied there as institutional students. It is further submitted that there are material improvements in the statement of the victims regarding place of incident as well as date of incident. It is further submitted that as per first information report, the alleged incident is said to have taken place sometime between 14.01.2026 to 18.01.2026 in the Magh Mela and also during Mahakumbh Mela in January and February, 2025 and it is highly unbelievable that if the incident of such nature had taken place with the victims during Maha Kumbh then they visited the place of the applicants in Magh Mela. It is further submitted that the victims have never been produced before the Investigating Officer or team during inquiry under Section 175(3) of BNSS and their statements have not been recorded and their written statements have been handed over to the inquiry officer. It is further alleged that the victims were not placed in a proper custody as required unde