A Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s March 25 order granting anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in the Prayagraj POCSO case concerning alleged sexual abuse of minors.
Ashutosh Brahmachari, the first informant in the case, filed the petition through Advocate-on-Record Saurabh Ajay Gupta. He argues that the High Court did not give sufficient weight to the seriousness of the allegations against the accused while granting pre-arrest protection.
Petition Challenges High Court’s Reasoning
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math after examining the circumstances placed before it. The Court described the conduct of the minor victims as “unusual” because they disclosed the alleged offences to a stranger, namely the informant, instead of approaching their natural guardians.
The petition before the Supreme Court questions that reasoning and seeks interference with the High Court’s order dated March 25.
High Court Examined Section 29 Of POCSO Act
In its 22-page order, the High Court also considered the State’s submission on the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The bench rejected that argument at the anticipatory bail stage and held that the presumption of guilt cannot operate before the framing of charges.
Court Noted Delay In Reporting Alleged Offence
The High Court also focused on the six-day delay in reporting the alleged offence to the police. According to the case record, the victims informed Brahmachari about the alleged abuse on January 18, 2026. However, he contacted the police only on January 24.
Brahmachari explained the delay by stating that he remained occupied with a “Pooja/Yagya” during that period.
Informant’s Separate Application Also Came Under Scrutiny
While considering that explanation, the High Court noted another circumstance. It recorded that Brahmachari had filed a separate application on January 21 regarding a different alleged incident under Section 109 and other provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The Court took note of this step while assessing the explanation offered for the delay in approaching the police.
High Court Criticised Media Interviews Of Minor Victims
The High Court also expressed strong concern over media involvement after the FIR was registered. It noted that several Hindi news channels interviewed the minor victims and recorded their statements.
The Court held that such coverage directly violated the procedure prescribed under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Court Called For Greater Care And Caution
The High Court further said that the facts of the case required “greater care and caution” because of a notable coincidence. It pointed out that January 18, 2026, the date on which the informant allegedly learned about the abuse, also marked the day on which a separate dispute arose between the accused and the local administration over bathing in the Sangam on the occasion of Mauni Amavasya.
The Supreme Court will now consider the challenge to the High Court’s anticipatory bail order in the matter.
Also Read: Supreme Court exempts off-road industrial vehicles from road tax.
