Two minors allegedly sexually abused Swami Avimukteshwaran and Saraswati during the recent Magh Mela in Prayagraj. | Photo credit: ANI
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday (March 25, 2026) granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaran and Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, in a case registered against him in Prayagraj under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO). Noting several inconsistencies and procedural concerns, the court ruled that protection from arrest was warranted at this stage.
The FIR against Mr. Saraswati and one of his aides, Mukundanand Giri, was registered on the instructions of a special court in Prayagraj. On February 21, the court directed the police to act on a complaint filed by Ashutosh Brahmachari and two minors, aged 14 and 17, who alleged that the accused sexually abused them during the recent Magh Mela in Prayagraj. The proceedings were initiated after a petition was filed before a special judge alleging inaction by the local police on previous written complaints to senior officials.
The religious leader called the case against him “politically motivated” and that he was falsely implicated. He applied to the High Court for anticipatory bail in the matter. Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha granted interim bail to Mr. Saraswati and Mr. Giri last month. He announced the final order on anticipatory bail on Wednesday (March 25).
“Victim Behavior”
The court noted the delay in reporting the case. She said the whistleblower claimed the incident took place on January 18, but the complaint was not filed until 6 days later. The earlier complaint filed on Jan. 21 made no mention of alleged sexual offenses, the court noted.
The court considered it significant that the minors were entrusted to the care of their parents or competent authorities until the end of February. They stayed with the informant for a considerable time. He also noted that the statements of the victims contained deviations regarding the time and place of the incident, with references beyond the period and place mentioned in the FIR.
Another factor noted by the court was the behavior surrounding the case, including media interviews by both the accused and the victims. The court found such exposures inconsistent with the safeguards in place under POCSO.
Majority and inconclusive evidence
The medical evidence, the court noted, was inconclusive. While the medical report did not rule out sexual assault, it noted no external injuries and did not provide a definitive finding. The court also noted that the accused was not medically examined. The court also took cognizance of the contention that one of the alleged victims may have attained majority during the period mentioned in the FIR and that educational records indicated that minors were not staying at the accused’s ashram.
Published – 25 March 2026 22:57 IST
