Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in POCSO Bail Case

The Supreme Court has decided not to intervene in the Allahabad High Court's ruling that granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a POCSO case. The court dismissed the complainant's petition, emphasizing the need for caution in cases involving minors. The High Court had previously restricted media statements from the involved parties and instructed them to cooperate with the investigation. The complainant's special leave petition challenges the legal basis of the bail, arguing that such relief should only be granted in extraordinary circumstances due to the serious nature of the allegations.

By Narendra Chaudhary May 29, 2026, 14:31 IST

Supreme Court's Decision on Bail

On May 29, the Supreme Court opted not to intervene in the Allahabad High Court's ruling that granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a case filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The bench, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotishwar Singh, dismissed the petition filed by the complainant, Ashutosh Brahmachari, stating, "We will not interfere in this matter." On March 25, the Allahabad High Court had previously granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari in relation to the POCSO case against them.

Court's Directives on Media Statements

The High Court, however, prohibited both the primary complainant and the petitioners (Swami Avimukteshwaranand and his disciple) from making any statements to the media regarding the case. The court instructed them to cooperate with the investigation. This case pertains to an FIR registered at the Jhunsi police station in Prayagraj, following directives from the POCSO court, which alleges sexual exploitation of several 'batuks' (young disciples) by the accused.

Legal Challenges to the High Court's Ruling

In a special leave petition (SLP) filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari, the legal basis of the High Court's March 25 order was questioned. The petition argued that anticipatory bail in serious offenses involving minors should only be granted under extraordinary circumstances. It emphasized that the allegations against the accused are severe, potentially leading to life imprisonment, and that the High Court failed to apply established principles regarding pre-arrest bail in such cases. The petition highlighted the need for courts to exercise extreme caution, especially in cases governed by stringent laws like the POCSO Act.