Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere with Anticipatory Bail in POCSO Case Involving Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand

New Delhi, May 2026 : The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the anticipatory bail granted to Jyotish Peeth Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Mukundanand Giri in connection with a child sexual abuse case registered by the Uttar Pradesh Police under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by spiritual leader Ashutosh Brahmachari Maharaj, who had challenged the Allahabad High Court order granting anticipatory bail to the accused.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the anticipatory bail granted by the Allahabad High Court will continue to remain in force, providing relief to the accused in the ongoing investigation.

The case originates from a complaint registered at Jhunsi Police Station in Prayagraj, where allegations of sexual abuse of minors were made under the POCSO Act. Following the complaint, a Special POCSO court had earlier directed the registration of an FIR in February this year, triggering a detailed police investigation.

The Allahabad High Court, in its order dated March 25, had granted anticipatory bail to the accused after observing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version. The single-judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha noted that, based on the available material and without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for granting anticipatory bail was made out.

The High Court had also imposed conditions on the accused, directing that in the event of arrest they would be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 along with two sureties each. The court further mandated cooperation with the investigation and restrained them from influencing witnesses or interfering with the ongoing probe.

In its detailed reasoning, the High Court had highlighted procedural irregularities and contradictions in the complaint. It noted delays in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the statements of the alleged victims regarding the timing and location of the incidents.

The court also observed that the first informant, who claimed to be the guardian of the victims, received information about the alleged offence on January 18, 2026, but approached the police only after a delay of six days, citing engagement in “pooja and yagya” activities.

Additionally, the High Court restrained all parties—including the applicants, victims, and informant—from making media statements or granting interviews during the pendency of the investigation and trial proceedings.

Earlier, on February 27, the High Court had granted interim protection from arrest to Swami Avimukteshwaranand and directed him to cooperate fully with the investigation.

During the hearings, the accused had claimed false implication, pointing to inconsistencies in victim statements, delay in filing the complaint, and absence of supporting medical evidence. They argued that the allegations lacked corroboration and were being misused.

On the other hand, the Uttar Pradesh government and the complainant opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that the allegations were serious in nature and warranted custodial interrogation. They also expressed concern that the accused could potentially influence witnesses if granted protection from arrest.

Despite these arguments, both the High Court and now the Supreme Court have allowed the anticipatory bail to stand, while the investigation into the case continues under legal supervision.

Dec 2025
Team Maverick