The Allahabad High Court recent decision to give Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati anticipatory bail in a case filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses POCSO Act has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
In his appeal complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari contends that anticipatory bail should only be granted in extremely rare situations because the charges against the accused are serious and carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
It also raises questions about the accused influence, claiming that his reputation and fan base give rise to a genuine fear of interference with the investigation including the potential to sway victims and witnesses.
The complaint further highlights alleged disregard for court imposed restrictions on media participation noting that the accused participated in media appearances in violation of the High Court orders to stay away from performing so.
However, the challenge makes clear that it does not explore the substance of the accusations and is limited to the legal rules guiding the issue of anticipatory bail in serious offenses under particular statutes like the POCSO Act.
Advocate Saurabh Ajay Gupta has submitted the appeal.
Last month a Special POCSO Court ordered the filing of a formal complaint against the religious leader due to claims that two young boys at a Prayagraj camp had been sexually abused. Shankuri Peethadheshwar Ashutosh Maharaj filed the complaint.
The accused petitioned the High Court for anticipatory bail after the FIR.
While granting relief, the High Court cast doubt on the prosecutions case.
The High Court observed that the victims allegedly told the complainant a stranger about the incident rather than their legal guardians, which it deemed to be at odds with typical human behavior. A six day delay in filing the FIR was also questioned, and it was noted that the informant had blamed the delay on participating in religious rites.
It further mentioned that the victims had stayed with the informant and had not been turned over to their parents or the authorities right after. Additionally it noted that the victims had given interviews to the media, seeing this as going against established protocol under the Juvenile Justice System and the POCSO Act.
The High Court further noted that their allegations emerged in the context of a previous disagreement between the accused and local officials on arrangements at the Sangam during Mauni Amavasya and voiced doubts about the medical evidence.
The appeal before the Supreme Court contends that by addressing topics that are matters of evidence to be challenged before trial, the High Court went beyond the narrow scope of review at the anticipatory bail stage.
Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
According to the plea, the Court was only required to apply established parameters governing the grant of bail and was not required to conduct a thorough evaluation of the prosecutions case once the FIR had been registered in accordance with judicial directives and a statutory presumption operated under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
The plea claims that the incident happened during the Magh Mela, when chaotic conditions prevented the minor victims from contacting their family, in response to the High Court observation regarding disclosure of the case to the complainant rather than guardians.
It claims that the complainant was present at the scene and known to the victims and that the revelation was made to him out of confidence and familiarity making it a normal rather than an extraordinary course of action.
