The court asked the state government and the informant, Ashutosh Pandey, to file their replies. Swami Avimukteshwaranand was directed to cooperate with the ongoing police investigation.
The Allahabad High Court on Friday stayed the arrest of Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and reserved its order on his anticipatory bail plea in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Granting interim relief, the court directed that no coercive action be taken against the spiritual leader until it pronounces its verdict, which is expected in the third week of March.
The order was passed by Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha after a hearing that lasted over an hour in a packed courtroom.
The court asked the state government and the informant, Ashutosh Pandey, also known as Ashutosh Brahmachari, to file their replies. Swami Avimukteshwaranand was directed to cooperate with the ongoing police investigation.
The case was registered at Jhunsi police station on the direction of a Prayagraj POCSO court.
The FIR alleges sexual exploitation of ‘batuks’ (young disciples) by the seer and others during the Magh Mela and Mahakumbh events.
According to the prosecution, the alleged victims have undergone medical examinations and recorded their statements before the authorities.
During the hearing, the maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea became a key point of discussion.
The state government and the complainant’s counsel opposed the application, arguing that the accused had approached the High Court directly without first moving the sessions court.
The bench made pointed observations in this regard. “It may be difficult for us to entertain this,” the court remarked. “You should have first approached sessions court. Why have you come to HC directly?”
The court added, “Though there is no bar on HC entertaining this but it may not be proper. You should have gone to sessions court first”.
In response, counsel for Swami Avimukteshwaranand argued that the High Court and the sessions court enjoy concurrent jurisdiction in anticipatory bail matters, and therefore the plea was maintainable.
The defence also challenged the merits of the allegations. It claimed that one of the alleged victims is an adult as per educational records and is not associated with the ashram.
The defence questioned the delay in lodging the FIR, stating, “The first information regarding the incident of Feb 17 was brought forth by the complainant on Feb 24. Inquiry officer asked what were you doing for all these days? They said hum pooja-paath mein busy thhe”.
Using strong language, the defence submitted, “Their reasoning, their explanation is so absurd!”
It further attacked the credibility of the complainant, saying, “Complainant also has a criminal record himself. He is a history sheeter of A category. The complainant cannot be trusted”.
