POCSO Case: Relief For Swami Avimukteshwaranand As Supreme Court Refuses To Cancel Bail

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to Swami Avimukteshwarananda Saraswati from Allahabad High Court in the POCSO case. A bench of Justice MM Sundaresh and Justice N Kotishwar Singh rejected the petition of complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari. Also raised questions on the initial silence of the complainant.

What did the court ask the complainant?

During the hearing, the bench asked in a stern tone, "You were already there. You were aware of the incident. What did you do then? When the crime took place, you had gone to the police for some other work. Why did you not inform the police then?" 

To this the complainant's lawyer said, "I was badly hurt." But the court refused to accept the argument and dismissed the appeal.

What is the matter?

On the complaint of Shankuri Peethadhishwar Ashutosh Maharaj, an FIR was registered under the POCSO Act against Swami Avimukteshwaranand on charges of sexual exploitation of two minor boys in a camp in Prayagraj. FIR was registered on the orders of the Special POCSO Court. After this, Swami Avimukteshwaranand had sought anticipatory bail from the High Court.

Supreme Court has upheld the anticipatory bail granted to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari… pic.twitter.com/ZElpREaD9R

— ANI (@ANI) May 29, 2026

What is the argument of the complainant in the SC? 

Complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari told the Supreme Court that the allegations against the accused are very serious. There is a punishment of up to life imprisonment. In such cases, anticipatory bail should be granted only in rare circumstances. It was also said in the petition that the High Court had directed the accused to stay away from the media, yet he came to the media. This violated the court order. The complainant claimed that the accused had influence and following. This may affect the investigation. There may be pressure on witnesses and victims.

Why did the SC reject the petition?

The complainant argued that the High Court should not have delved into the evidence of the case at the stage of anticipatory bail. The FIR was registered on the orders of the court and there is a presumption of guilt under Section 29 of POCSO. In such a situation, only the fixed parameters of bail had to be seen. The complainant also said that there was chaos in the Magh Mela, hence the children could not reach their families. He knew the complainant, so he trusted him and narrated the incident. But the Supreme Court upheld the High Court order. The bench rejected the appeal on the basis of inaction of the complainant. This petition was filed through lawyer Saurabh Ajay Gupta.