Swami Avimukteshwaranand gets bail: The Allahabad High Court (HC) on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari in a case pertaining to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing inconsistencies and legal grounds. Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha delivered the order, who had earlier reserved judgement after hearing arguments from both sides.
[caption id="attachment_1652" align="alignnone" width="1200"]
Swami Avimukteshwaranand[/caption]
Swami’s arrest had been stayed earlier
Earlier on February 27, 2026, the court had stayed the arrest of the seer, directing that he should not be taken into custody until the final verdict was delivered. During the proceedings, the applicants had been instructed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The case stems from a First Information Report (FIR) registered at a police station in Prayagraj, following directives from a POCSO Court. The complaint accused Swami and his disciple of sexually exploiting several female minor disciples, commonly referred to as ‘batuks.’
Court questions unusual conduct of victims
The bench, in its 22-page order, raised concerns over what it termed ‘unusual’ behaviour by the alleged victims. It noted that the minors reportedly confided in the first informant, Ashutosh Brahmachari, rather than their natural guardians. It further observed that the reasoning provided, that the informant was a regular visitor who showed reverence to the seer, did not align with typical human conduct.
Swami Avimukteshwaranand gets bail: Presumption cannot be applied at pre-arrest stage, rules court
[caption id="attachment_1653" align="alignnone" width="1200"]
Allahabad HC[/caption]
The court then rejected the State’s contention invoking statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, clarifying that such presumption cannot apply at the pre-arrest stage before the charges are framed. Additionally, the HC junked objections regarding the maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea. It ruled that ‘special and extraordinary circumstances’ justified directly approaching the high court, given that the FIR was registered on directions of a Special POCSO Judge under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Court points out delay in reporting incident
Furthermore, the court pointed out a significant delay in reporting the alleged offences. While the victims were said to have informed the complainant on January 18, 2026, the police were apprised of the case only six days later, a gap the bench noted while assessing the case.
Also read: Goa nightclub inferno case: Court grants bail to co-owner Ajay Gupta amid ongoing probe