The Supreme Court on Friday (May 29, 2026) declined to interfere with an Allahabad High Court order granting anticipatory bail to Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a case registered against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in Prayagraj.

A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. Singh dismissed a petition filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari challenging the High Court’s March 25 order. The case pertains to allegations that the seer had sexually assaulted two minors, aged 14 and 17, during the Magh Mela in Prayagraj earlier this year.

The petitioner argued before the apex court that the High Court had failed to adequately consider the gravity of allegations involving minors while granting relief to the accused.

During the proceedings, Justice Sundresh raised questions regarding the delay in approaching the police, noting that the complainant had claimed to possess information about the alleged incidents earlier.

The FIR against Swami Avimukteshwaranand and his aide, Mukundanand Giri, was registered after a special court in Prayagraj directed the police to act on a complaint submitted by Mr. Brahmachari. The order was passed on February 21.

The religious leader, who has denied the allegations and described the case as politically motivated, subsequently approached the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Procedural lapses

In its order granting relief, the High Court referred to what it described as inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the prosecution’s case. The court noted that although the complainant claimed to have learned about the alleged incidents on January 18, the complaint was filed six days later. It also observed that an earlier complaint submitted on January 21 did not contain allegations of sexual assault.

The High Court further took note of discrepancies in statements regarding the time and location of the alleged incidents. It observed that the minors had remained with the complainant for a considerable period before being handed over to their parents or authorities. The court also referred to submissions questioning the age status of one of the alleged victims during the relevant period and to school records indicating that the minors were not residing at the accused’s ashram.