Allahabad High Court grants anticipatory bail to Avimukteshwaranand in POCSO case

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Prophet Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO) in a case involving allegations of sexual exploitation of minors.The relief was granted on Wednesday by Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, who also directed the complainant and the accused not to make any public statement in the case.The court allowed the anticipatory bail plea while stressing that the investigation must be conducted without outside influence. In addition to exempting them from arrest, the court also imposed a gag order on both parties, prohibiting them from speaking to the media about the matter.The court had reserved the verdict a few weeks ago after a detailed hearing and had earlier provided interim protection from arrest to the accused.

Interim protection and court opinions

On February 27, the High Court stayed the arrest of Avimukteshwaranand and directed that he would not be detained until the final order is announced. During the course of the proceedings, the court also directed the state government and the complainants to submit replies and asked the defendants to fully cooperate with the investigation.

Charges and FIR details

The case stems from an FIR registered at Jhunsi police station in Prayagraj on the instructions of the POCSO court. The complaint alleges that several “batuks” (young disciples) associated with the monastery were sexually exploited.The complainant, Ashutosh Pandey alias Ashutosh Brahmachari, alleged that the minor was abused and expressed hope that “justice will be served once the evidence is brought before the court”.

Defense and prosecution arguments

The defense vehemently denies the charges, calling them fabricated. It argued that the complainant had a criminal background and claimed that the alleged victim had never lived in the Prophet’s monastery. The seer also questioned the authenticity of the medical reports and accused the complainant of trying to influence the case.In a noteworthy submission, Avi Mukteshwaranand expressed his willingness to undergo anesthetic analysis test to prove his innocence.The state, however, objected to the anticipatory bail plea on procedural grounds, arguing that the accused approached the High Court directly instead of first being transferred for hearing.