In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has approved anticipatory bail petitions for Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Swami Mukundanand Giri in a case related to alleged sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The decision was pronounced at 3:45 PM by Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha in a single bench hearing, effectively staying the arrest of the Shankaracharya.
What Happened in Court?
The final hearing in the case was held on February 27, after which the court had reserved its judgment. Until today, the court had already stayed the arrest of the Shankaracharya. Media reports indicate that despite strong opposition from the state government and complainant’s lawyers, the court accepted the defense arguments and granted anticipatory bail to both individuals.
During the bail hearing, Swami Avimukteshwaranand’s lawyer, P.N. Mishra, argued that the entire case was part of a conspiracy. The Shankaracharya had earlier stated that the child in question had never been under his care and claimed the matter was orchestrated by administrative and political opponents.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy originated during the Prayagraj Magh Mela. Ashutosh Maharaj, disciple of Tulsi Peethadhishwar Swami Rambhadrcharia, alleged that boys were sexually abused during the Magh Mela 2026 and Mahakumbh 2025.
- February 8: A petition was filed in the special POCSO court.
- February 21: Based on court orders, an FIR was lodged against Swami Avimukteshwaranand and his disciple at Jhunsi Police Station.
- February 24: The Shankaracharya approached the High Court seeking protection from arrest.
During the investigation, statements from two children were recorded, and medical examinations were conducted. Police sources claimed that the medical report confirmed misconduct. However, the Shankaracharya’s camp strongly denied the allegations, stating they were attempts to tarnish his reputation.
Following today’s verdict, the Shankaracharya’s camp expressed satisfaction with the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the legal process had restored their rights.
