Kamal Ghorui
The Allahabad high court granted anticipatory bail to seer Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari in a case involving allegations of sexual exploitation of minors under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.The relief was granted on Wednesday by justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, who also directed both the complainant and the accused to refrain from making any public statements about the case.The court allowed the anticipatory bail pleas while emphasising that the investigation must proceed without external influence. Alongside granting relief from arrest, the court imposed a gag order on both sides, restraining them from speaking to the media on the matter.The order comes weeks after the court had reserved its judgment following detailed hearings and had earlier extended interim protection from arrest to the accused.
Interim protection and court observations
On February 27, the High Court had stayed the arrest of Avimukteshwaranand, directing that he would not be taken into custody until the final order was pronounced. During the proceedings, the court had also instructed both the state government and the complainant to file their responses and asked the accused to cooperate fully with the investigation.
Allegations and FIR details
The case stems from an FIR registered at Jhunsi police station in Prayagraj, following directions from a POCSO court. The complaint alleges sexual exploitation of several ‘batuks’ (young disciples) associated with the ashram.The complainant, Ashutosh Pandey alias Ashutosh Brahmachari, has claimed that minors were subjected to abuse, expressing hope that “justice would be served after the evidence was submitted in court.”
Defence and prosecution arguments
The defence has strongly denied the allegations, calling them fabricated. It argued that the complainant has a criminal background and claimed that the alleged victims never resided at the seer’s ashram. The seer also questioned the authenticity of medical reports and accused the complainant of attempting to influence the case.In a notable submission, Avimukteshwaranand expressed willingness to undergo a narcoanalysis test to establish his innocence.The state, however, opposed the anticipatory bail plea on procedural grounds, arguing that the accused had approached the high court directly instead of first moving a sessions court.
