SC refuses to cancel anticipatory bail granted to Swami Avimukteshwaranand in POCSO case
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court order granting anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand in a POCSO case. The complainant alleged sexual exploitation of minors, while the seer denied the charges, claiming he was falsely implicated in the matter
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court order granting anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a case registered against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the plea of complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari. Complainant Brahmachari argued that the high court failed to adequately consider the severity of the allegations against Avimukteshwaranand Advocate Saurabh Ajay Gupta, appearing for the complainant, submitted that Avimukteshwaranand had “sexually exploited” minors on the pretext of imparting education “It’s a very heinous offence under the POCSO Act. The high court has dealt with the issue in a mechanical fashion,” he submitted.
The bench, which questioned the petitioner over the delay in going to the police despite claiming to have information about the alleged abuse of minors, said, “Sorry, we are not going to interfere”. On March 25, the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Avimukteshwaranand and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari in a case registered against them under the POCSO Act.
However, the high court restrained both the first informant and the applicants (Avimukteshwaranand and the disciple) from making any statements before the media in this regard. The court had directed both of them to cooperate with the investigation.
The case pertains to an FIR lodged at the Jhunsi police station in Prayagraj following directions from a POCSO court, alleging sexual exploitation of several ‘batuks’ (young disciples) by the accused.
Avimukteshwaranand had maintained that the allegations were fabricated and his lawyers had contended before the high court that the complainant has a criminal history.
They submitted that the seer has been falsely implicated in the case and claimed that the alleged victims never stayed at his ashram. The state had opposed the plea on technical grounds, saying it was filed directly in the high court without first approaching a sessions court.
Avimukteshwaranand had even expressed willingness to undergo a narcoanalysis test to establish the truth. He also questioned the validity of medical reports and alleged that the complainant was influencing the case.
