# Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 42
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2198 of 2026
- **Bench:** Jitendra Kumar Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/swami-avimukteshwaranand-saraswati-jagatguru-shankaracharya-54391
- **Pages:** 19

## Text

_Characters 0–39,648 of 68,701. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39648 for what follows._

42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Crime No.61 of 2025 vide order dated 05.06.2025, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.15679 of 2025. There is sufficient material to indicate that opposite party no.2 has
deliberately breached the conditions of said bail and misused the liberty of bail and thus, a case for
cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 05.06.2025 is made out.

19. In view of aforesaid, the bail granted to the opposite party no.2/ accused Vineet vide order
dated 05.06.2025, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15679 of 2025 in relation
to Case Crime No.61 of 2025, under Section 74 BNS and Section 7/ 8 POCSO Act, is hereby
cancelled. The opposite party no.2/ accused Vineet is directed to surrender before the court
concerned within a period of two weeks from today.

20. The bail cancellation application is allowed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 42
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2198 of 2026

Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar &
Anr. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants / accused of offences
under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act were entitled to anticipatory bail u/s 482 BNSS,
particularly when the anticipatory bail application had been filed directly before the High Court without first
approaching the Sessions Court, and when serious allegations of penetrative sexual assault upon minor
victims had been levelled against them.

Headnotes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - s. 351(3) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - ss.
173(4), 180, 183 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - ss. 5(1), 6, 3, 4(2), 16
, 17, 29, 127(2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 225 - Anticipatory Bail - Maintainability of -
Direct Approach High Court - Special / Extraordinary Circumstances - The instant criminal
anticipatory bail application u/s 482 BNSS was instituted by the applicants, apprehending arrest
in Case Crime No. 58 of 2026 registered at Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, u/s 351(3)
of B.N.S and various provisions of POCSO Act relating to alleged penetrative sexual assault upon
two victim boys - The FIR came to be lodged pursuant to an order passed by learned Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Prayagraj on an application u/s 173(4) BNSS moved by first informant, who
claimed to be the guardian of victims - The prosecution alleged that the victims were subjected
to repeated sexual assault at the Ashram and camp premises connected with applicant no.1
during the period spanning Mahakumbh 2025 and Magh Mela 2026 - The applicants, however,
denied the allegations and contended that the prosecution case suffered from material
3 All. Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar & Anr.
 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
43
inconsistencies regarding the place and timing of occurrence, unexplained delay in reporting,
improvements in the statements of victims, improper custody and media exposure of victims,
absence of corroborative medical evidence, and mala fide intent on the part of first informant - A
preliminary objection was also raised by State regarding the maintainability of anticipatory bail
application directly before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court - The
matter, therefore, came before the High Court for adjudication upon the maintainability and
merits of prayer for anticipatory bail in the backdrop of serious allegations under the POCSO Act.

Held: The victims have remained in constant touch accompanied with the first informant and they have not
been given to any proper custody before 25.02.2026 - After lodging of FIR, the statement of victims were
recorded and victims have been interviewed by various Hindi News Channels in violation of established
procedure of POCSO and Juvenile Justice Act - The victims not narrating the incident to their natural guardian
and narrating the same to first informant, who is a stranger, is also not consistent with normal course of
human conduct and behavior - The place of occurrence and period of occurrence mentioned in FIR has been
shown at Prayagraj and from Jaunary, 2025 to February, 2026 i.e. Mahakumbh to Magh Mela, whereas one of
victim has stated that he was subjected to sexual assault in the month of June, 2024 at Narsinghpur at
Madhya Pradesh and Badrinath at Uttrakhand and date of birth of said victim as per his educational certificate
is 01.08.2006, which means that on the alleged date of incident as described in FIR i.e. from the January,
2025 to February, 2026, he was major whereas he was minor in June, 2024 - The victims are not the students
of Asharam of applicant no.1 as from their educational certificate, they are students of one Sanskrit School of
District Hardoi - The medical report as prepared by doctor does not find any external injury on the victims
and it has been opined that sexual assault cannot be ruled out and FSL report has been sought, which clearly
shows that conclusive finding has not been given by doctor regarding commission of sexual assault on victims
- The medical examination of applicants have not been conducted, which are required in cases involving
sexual assault - The date of first informant receiving information regarding commission of offence from victims
and dispute that arose between the applicant no.1 and administration regarding taking of bath in Sangam on
the holy occasion of Mauni Amavasya is the same i.e. 18.01.2026 - Conclusions are limited for purpose of
deciding the application for anticipatory bail, they shall have no bearing on the investigation / trial - Thus,
anticipatory bail application allowed. [Paras 51, 53, 54] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Harshad S. Mehta & Ors v. The State Of Maharashtra, 2001 (8) SCC 257; Manjeet Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, arising out of SLP No.11679 of 2025; Mohammed Rasal C. and another Vs. State of Kerala and
another, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6588 of 2025; Jagdeo Prasad v. The State of Bihar, 2025
SCC Online SC 2108; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and another (1978) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 102; Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and another (2022) 17 SCC 391; State of Bihar v.
Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Prasad Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav (2017), 2 SCC 178; Suraj Kumar alias
Vishapratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39835 of 2024;
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, AIR
1954, SC 282; Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application
U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1094 of 2020; Manjeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No.11667 of 2025; Dharmander Singh @ Saheb v. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi), Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.1559 of 2020, order dated 22.09.2020; Monish and others v. State of U.P. and
three others, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.55026 of 2021; Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State
(NCT of Delhi) and another, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.7281-7282 of 2017, (2020) 5 SCC
1 - referred to

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012; Constitution of India, 1950.

List of Keywords
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Anticipatory Bail; Maintainability; Special Circumstances; Concurrent Jurisdiction; s. 482 BNSS; s. 173(4)
BNSS; Penetrative Sexual Assault; s. 29 POCSO Act; Mahakumbh, Magh Mela; Mauni Amavasya; Modi's Book
of Medical Jurisprudence; Presumption of Commission; Custodial Interrogation; Delay In Lodging FIR; Victim
Statements; FSL Report; Pooja / yagya; Institutional Students; Educational Certificates; Shankaracharya of
Jyotishpeeth; Natural Guardian; Proper Custody; Juvenile Justice Act; Media Interviews; Influence the
Investigation; Tampering with Evidence; Human Conduct; Serious and Heinous Offence; Fair Investigation;
Oral Sexual Assault; Religious Rally; Direct Approach the High Court; Anticipatory Bail Application allowed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. - 2198 of 2026

Seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No.58 of 2026, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant(s):
Sri Prakash, Sr. Advocate, Rajrshi Gupta, Sudhanshu Kumar, Varad Nath

Adv. for the Opposite Party(s):
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.)

1. Written submissions filed on behalf of the applicants and the State are taken on record. The
first informant appeared on 17.03.2026 and submitted his written submissions with the delay
condonation application stating therein that he was attacked with some identified person in a train
when he came to Prayagraj, therefore, he could not file written submission within time. In the
interest of justice, written submission along with two Volumes of documents filed by him are taken
on record.

2. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajshri Gupta, Sudhanshu
Kumar and Shri Varad Nath, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Patanjali Mishra, learned Government Advocate and
Shri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA-I for the State respondents and Ms.Reena N. Singh, leaned
counsel for the first informant through Video Conferencing.

3. Present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.58 of 2026,
under Sections 351(3) of B.N.S. and Sections 5(1), 6, 3, 4(2), 16 and 17 POCSO Act, Police
Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be
released on bail.

Arguments on behalf of the Applicants

4. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the first information report has been
lodged after a direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act,
Prayagraj on an application filed by the first informant U/s 173(4) of BNSS.
3 All. Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar & Anr.
 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
45

5. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that the allegations contained in the
application under Section 173(4) of BNSS are wholly unbelievable as the victims have never been
students of the applicant no.1 and they have never resided in his ashram as is evident from the
Educational Certificate, which is from one of the School of District Hardoi and the victims studied
there as institutional students. It is further submitted that there are material improvements in the
statement of the victims regarding place of incident as well as date of incident. It is further
submitted that as per first information report, the alleged incident is said to have taken place
sometime between 14.01.2026 to 18.01.2026 in the Magh Mela and also during Mahakumbh Mela
in January and February, 2025 and it is highly unbelievable that if the incident of such nature had
taken place with the victims during Maha Kumbh then they visited the place of the applicants in
Magh Mela. It is further submitted that the victims have never been produced before the
Investigating Officer or team during inquiry under Section 175(3) of BNSS and their statements
have not been recorded and their written statements have been handed over to the inquiry officer. It
is further alleged that the victims were not placed in a proper custody as required under the Juvenile
Justice Act and they were allowed to remain with the first informant and the victims were under his
influence.

6. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that during arguments, learned Additional
Advocate General informed the Court that the victims have been placed in the custody of their
natural guardian by order passed by CWC on 25.02.2026. It is further submitted that in view of the
above, they were in illegal custody of the first informant before 25.02.2026. It is further submitted
that a dispute arose between the administration and the applicant no.1 on 18.01.2026 regarding
taking bath in the Sangam on the holy occasion of Mauni Amavasya and on 21.01.2026, the first
informant gave a written report to the police authorities, which has not disclosed the commission of
the said offence, whereas, he had come to know about the commission of the alleged offence from
the victims on 18.01.2026 itself. It is further submitted that for the first time, the first informant
gave a written report regarding the commission of the alleged offence with the victims on
24.01.2026 and when the inquiry team asked him about the delay in reporting the matter, the first
informant gave a reply that he was engaged in "Pooja". It is further submitted that there is a delay
in making the report and the fact that prior to reporting the present incident, the first informant had
filed a report on 21.01.2026, in which, there was no mention of the alleged offence raises serious
doubt on the truthfulness of the allegations levelled in the application.

7. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that one of the victim has become major
in the month of August, 2024 itself as his date of birth is 01.08.2006 as per his Class 12th
marksheet and in order to bring the case within the purview of the POCSO Act, the victim has
stated that the alleged incident also took place in the month of June, 2024, which also raises serious
doubt on the truthfulness of the allegations. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled
against applicant no.1, who is highly revered Guru are with the intention to humiliate and harass
him and to bring down his image in the public opinion. It is further submitted that the medical
opinion given by the doctor is without any basis as the doctor has opined that the sexual violence
cannot be ruled out whereas as per the statement of the victims, the applicants are said to have
indulged in penetrative oral sexual assault and any sign of penetrative oral sexual assault cannot
last for such a long period of 40 days as per Modi's Book of Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology, 28th Editions. It is further submitted that no external injury or any sign has been found
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the person of the victims and the doctor's opinion, it appears, has been obtained on the pressure
of the Investigating Officer.

8. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that the applicants have not been
medically examined so as to corroborate the allegations levelled in the first information report and
the medical examination of the accused persons are very important in cases involving sexual
assault. It is further submitted that after lodging of the application under Section 173(4) of BNS,
the first informant has filed successive application against the applicants, which shows his malafide
intention. It is further submitted that the first informant is a person of criminal antecedent having
criminal history of 21 cases and he is in the habit of lodging false cases against various persons. It
is further submitted that the applicants have directly approached this Court for grant of anticipatory
bail as the first information report has been lodged on the direction of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Prayagraj on an application filed under Section
173(4) of BNS by the first informant.

9. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Harshad S. Mehta & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra, 2001 (8) SCC 257, in
which, the Hon'ble Supreme Curt has held that the Special Court enjoys all the powers of the Court
of original jurisdiction and it holds dual capacity and powers both of Magistrate and Court of
Session depending upon the stage of the case.

10. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since the learned Special Judge has directed
the registration of the first information report, the present case comes within the purview of the
special circumstance for directly approaching this Court. It is further submitted that the present case
has received extensive attention from the media and has been widely publicized in both print and
electronic media; consequently, due to procedural delays, the expeditious disposal of the
anticipatory bail application before the learned Special Judge (POCSO) cases is not feasible.

11. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgement in the case of Ankit
Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and another and other connected matters, in which, five judges Bench of
this Court has held that a person can approach the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail directly
in "special circumstances" and special circumstances can be left to be decided by the judge dealing
with the case.

12. Learned Senior counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement in the case of Manjeet
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, arising out of SLP No.11679 of 2025, in which, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has remanded back the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration for
entertainment of the anticipatory bail directly and to decide whether the special circumstance
existed for entertaining the anticipatory bail application directly.

13. Learned Senior counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgement in the case of
Mohammed Rasal C. and another Vs. State of Kerala and another, Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.6588 of 2025, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has appointed one amicus curiae to
suggest the criteria for special / extra-ordinary circumstances and the amicus curiae has submitted
suggestions and one of the suggestion regarding special circumstances for directly approaching the
3 All. Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar & Anr.
 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
47
High Court for grant of anticipatory bail is where the matter is cognizable by special Courts of rank
of Sessions Court / Additional Sessions Judge.

Arguments of State of U.P.

14. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
anticipatory bail of the applicants and they have raised preliminary objection that the applicants
have directly approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail and they have not approached the
Sessions Court first for grant of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that only in exceptional
circumstances, the High Court can be approached directly for grant of anticipatory bail without
availing the remedy first before the Sessions Court. It is further submitted that though the
jurisdiction of the High Court and the Sessions Court to entertain anticipatory bail application
under Section 482 BNSS is concurrent, however, the various judicial pronouncements have
mandated that the Sessions Court are to be approached first and the High Court can be approached
only in exceptional circumstances. It has further been submitted by him that the applicants have
approached the Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Prayagraj and have filed an application in the present
case and they have not approached the Special Judge (POSCO) Act for grant of anticipatory bail. It
is further submitted that the applicants have made contemptuous allegations against the Special
Judge (POCSO), Prayagraj, which come within the purview of contempt of Courts Act.

15. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jagdeo Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar, 2025 SCC Online SC 2108,
in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court,
where the application for grant of anticipatory bail was directly entertained by the High Court
without giving any cogent reasons.

16. Learned Additional Advocate General has also raised other preliminary objection that the
applicant no.1 has not sworn the affidavit in support of the anticipatory bail and the same has been
sworn by the applicant no.2 and the supplementary affidavit has been sworn by the stranger, which
is against the mandate of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which has been framed under Article
225 of the Constitution of India and has overriding effect on any other procedural law.

17. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance upon the judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Rasal.C. and another Vs. State of Kerala and
another, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6588 of 2025 vide order dated 12.11.2025, in which, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has condemned the practice adopted by certain High Courts of directly
entertaining the applications for anticipatory bail and learned Additional Advocate General has also
relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Batuk Deo
Pati Tripathi and another (1978) 2 Supreme Court Cases 102.

18. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
and it has been submitted by him that the allegations against the applicants are of very serious and
heinous in nature and the victims in their statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS
have supported the allegations of the first information report. It is further submitted that the
applicant no.1 is highly influential person and if released on anticipatory bail, it would have an
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adverse impact on the trial proceedings; there is a likelihood that the victims may become
intimidated and subjected to pressure.

19. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted a pen drive showing the media
coverage of the applicant no.1 after 27.02.2026 when the hearing of the case concluded and
submits that the applicant no.1 has indulged in giving interviews to various Hindi News Channels
and has been holding the political and religious meetings, which can have adverse effect on the
investigation / trial, if they are granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted in the written
statement that during investigation independent witness has supported the presence of the victims at
the place of occurrence i.e. the Maghamela Camp and from their school documents, the victims
have been found absent from their school during relevant period.

20. Learned Additional Advocate General has lastly submitted that Section 29 of the POCSO
Act raises a presumption against the applicants. In this background, learned Additional Advocate
General has also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another (2022) 17 SCC 391 and also the
judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad @
Rajballav Prasad Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav (2017), 2 SCC 178 and Suraj Kumar alias
Vishapratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.39835 of 2024 dealing with Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

Argument on behalf of first informant

21. Ms. Reena N. Singh, learned counsel for the first informant requested a V.C. link to appear
through video conferencing in the morning on 27.02.2026, which was granted, and a video
conferencing link was sent to her; thereafter, she appeared through video conferencing before a
packed courtroom, and she was heard at length. It is submitted that she appeared on behalf of the
first informant and she has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it has been
submitted by her that the applicants are highly influential person and if they are released on
anticipatory bail that can prove detrimental to a fair trial in the POCSO case. Furthermore, it has
been submitted that, apart from the victims, there are several other minor children who have also
been subjected to sexual exploitation and custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary.

22. It is further contended by her that Section 29 of the POCSO Act raises a presumption of
commission of the offence and in this view of the matter, the applicants are not entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail.

23. The first informant Ashutosh Brahmachari Maharaj has filed written submission in person
and he has mentioned that on 21.02.2026, a first information report no.58 was registered in the
Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj under Sections 351(3) of BNS 2023 along with Sections
5(1), 6, 3, 4(2), 16, 17, 127(2) of POCSO Act, which discloses serious allegations of sexual offence
against the applicants. It has further been mentioned in the written submissions that the Additional /
Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Prayagraj vide order dated 21.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc.
No.88 of 2026 has directed for registration of the first information report under the various
provisions of B.N.S. and POCSO as quoted in the written submissions and it has further been stated
3 All. Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar & Anr.
 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
49
that the applicants are highly influential persons and if they are granted anticipatory bail, they are
most likely to threaten the victims and their families and the informant, the applicants can further
tamper with evidence and influence the witnesses, which can seriously prejudice and influence the
fair investigation and trial. It has further been mentioned that the first informant was attacked by
unknown person on 08.03.2026 when he was travelling in train Rewa Express towards Prayagraj
while crossing Sirathu and an FIR in this regard was registered on 08.03.2026 FIR No.81, under
Section 118(1) B.N.S. 2023 at Police Station Prayagraj and it has been further submitted by him
that after registration of the said FIR, the close aide of applicant no.1 and 2 took the responsibility
for the grievous hurt and for the attempt to kill the informant on her personal social media account.
It is further stated that the incident clearly establishes that both the applicants are leaving no stone
unturned to influence the proceedings by attacking the informant and causing danger to his life.

24. It is further submitted that after the interim protection from arrest was granted to the
applicants in the present case they have left the State of Uttar Pradesh despite the said order and
Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh is requested to ensure fairness of the investigation in this
case. It is further submitted that the applicants are trying to influence, threaten and harm the victims
and their families as the applicants along with their various supporters reached one of the district of
Uttar Pradesh in the name of Gau Sanrakshak Yatra, large crowds are being gathered along with
local influential people of political parties, like Congress and Samajwadi Party to facilitate the
applicants. Such acts of applicants whose arrest is being stayed by this Court till disposal of this
application, by reaching the victim's district in public vicinity with huge crowd with local netas of
that district clearly amount to trying to create pressure on local administration and police to
influence the investigation and to threaten victims, informant and witnesses along with creating
social and political pressure on the families of victims, which is in clear violation of POCSO Act
and provisions of Section 31 and rules 4 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 along with provisions of
BNSS 2023, due to such acts of the applicants, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants
deserves to be dismissed.

25. It is further stated that the recent unfortunate incidents with the informant and attempts to
threaten victims and their families, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is extremely
necessary for verification of facts, recovery of electronic evidences and confrontation of the
witnesses. It is extremely important to mention that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage will
hamper the investigation. It is further stated in the written submissions that the victims have
supported the allegations of the first information report in their statement recorded under Section
183 BNSS and medical and other evidences clearly establish that the applicants have committed the
alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is not yet the Shankracharya of
Jyotimath/ Jyotishpeeth Badarikashram. As per 796 pages order dated 16.01.2018 by this Court in
First Appeal No.309 of 2015, a Division Bench of this Court gave a finding that the Guru of
applicant no.1, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, who was the petitioner in the stated
first appeal was never authorized to function as Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth since
he was never validly installed in the said position. The said facts were further stated by Division
Bench of this Court passed in Writ-C No.1272 of 2018 vide order dated 16.01.2018. It is further
submitted that by the same order, the High Court had rejected the application of the applicant no.1's
Guru as Shankracharya of Jyotirmath for allotment of land in Mela Prayagraj, which was earlier
rejected by Mela Authority on 09.01.2018. The said FA No.309 of 201 was challenged by applicant
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no.1 Guru Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj before Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.34253 of 2017, which is still pending for disposal, where it is still in dispute that who is the
Shankracharya of Jyotirmath/ Jyotishpeeth, as guru of applicant no.1 was undisputedly the
Shankarcharya of Shardapeeth Dwarka but not of Jyotipeeth, therefore, the claim of the applicant to
be called as Shankaracharya should be supported by any verifiable facts as the pending dispute is
also about disputed wills that whether Shankarcharya can be made through wills or not. It is further
stated that the title of Shankarcharya of Jyotirmath is in dispute and is pending before Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the same can not be denied. It has further been stated in the written submissions
that the investigation is still going on and the applicants have started yatra through Varanasi to
Lucknow from 7th March to 11th March, 2026 despite knowing the fact that the police is doing the
investigation against the applicants in the sensitive matter of POCSO. It is further submitted in the
written submission that the applicant no.1 is self proclaimed Shankarcharya, his responsibility rises
further than any ordinary citizen of the country, being called Shankarcharya (though disputed) does
not make him exempt from laws and constitution of the country as no one is allowed to do any sort
of crime or to harass any child or individual. It is further stated that the case of Asaram Bapu
demonstrates the heightened responsibility that spiritual leaders and religious teachers carry in
society. It is further stated that the title of Shankarcharya, which applicant no.1 claims is presently
disputed as that can not be conferred by the testamentary succession i.e. will. The first informant
has placed reliance upon the judgement of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954, SC 282. The first informant has
filed detailed para-wise reply in his written submissions to the averments made and the grounds
taken in the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants.

Analysis

26. At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Additional
Advocate General on the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application as the applicants have
approached this Court directly for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS. Section 482
BNSS gives concurrent powers to the High Court and the Court of Session to entertain and grant
anticipatory bail application to an accused, who is apprehending his arrest in a non bailable case,
however, in order to prevent the docket explosion of the High Court and also to give two chance to
the applicant, various judicial pronouncements have held that normal rule is that an applicant
should first approach the Sessions Court, however, the jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred
to directly entertain an application for grant of anticipatory bail. A five judges Bench of this Court
in Ankit Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and another, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.1094 of 2020 along with connected matters has held that normally,
the applicants should approach the Sessions Court first for grant of anticipatory bail, however, the
High Court may be approached directly for grant of anticipatory bail in "special circumstances" and
the Bench has also left it open for the judge dealing with the application to decide whether special
circumstances exist or not for entertaining anticipatory bail application directly.

27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.11667 of 2025 has held that " This Court's decision in "Kanumuri Raghurama
Krishnam Raju Vs. State of A.P." and "Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Director rate of Enforcement"
made this position clear and declared that it would not be necessary for an accused to approach the
3 All. Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar & Anr.
 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
51
Sessions Court in the first instance, as a rule, before approaching the High Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above case has remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide
whether special circumstances exist or not before allowing or refusing the anticipatory bail
application.

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal. C. and another Vs. State of Kerala
and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6588 of 2025 has held that though the
concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the Sessions Court and the High Court to entertain a
prayer for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 Cr.P.C.), the
hierarchy of the Courts demands that no person seeking such remedy should be encouraged or
allowed to directly approach the High Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
BNSS (formerly, Section 438 Cr.P.C.) by bypassing the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions
Court.

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the High Court may entertain an
application for pre arrest directly in special / extra-ordinary circumstances and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has appointed Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this matter. The learned Amicus
Curiae has made various suggestions and has prescribed various categories of the cases, in which,
the applicants may approach the High Court directly for grant of anticipatory bail under Section
482 of the BNSS (formerly, Section 438 Cr.P.C.) and one of the categories that has been suggested
is where the special courts dealing with offences under special acts are of the rank of Sessions
Court. Though, the above suggestions are not binding and they have not received approval by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as yet and the matter is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court, however,
the said categorization is still persuasive.

30. In the present case, the first information report has been lodged on the order passed by the
Special Judge (POCSO)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Prayagraj on an application filed by the first
informant under Section 173(4) of the BNSS.

31. In view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshad S. Mehta and others
Vs. State of Maharashtra as relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants that the
Special Judge acts in dual capacity as the Magistrate and the Sessions Court.

32. In view of the above, the present application comes within the purview of special / extraordinary circumstances, therefore, the preliminary objection of learned Additional Advocate
General is not sustainable.

33. The first information report has been lodged by one Ashutosh Brahmachari claiming to be
the guardian of the victim boys and for the first time, he filed an information disclosing that he had
received information about the commission of alleged offence from the victims. The victims have
stated that they had informed the first informant about the commission of the offence on
18.01.2026 and therefore, there is delay of 6 days in lodging information to the police for the first
time and for this, the first informant has assigned the reason that he was engaged in "Pooja /
Yagya". Moreover, the first informant had lodged a complaint regarding commission of an offence
with him relating to the offence under Section 109 and other Sections of the BNS on 21.01.2026 to
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the police authorities, in which, no mention of commission of the instant offence has been made by
him to the police authorities.

34. Moreover, the victims have been in constant company with the first informant and they
have never been made over to proper custody or in the custody of their parents before 25.02.2026.

35. The first information report has been lodged on 21.02.2026 by order of the Special Judge
(POCSO) Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Prayagraj on an applicaiton filed under Section 173(4)
of BNSS and after lodging of the first information report, the statements of the victims have been
recorded, in which, they have stated that the incident with them has taken place since June, 2024 in
various Ashram of applicant no.1, namely, Narsingh Pur and Badrinath, whereas in the first
information report, the duration of the offence has been mentioned from January, 2025 to February,
2026 i.e. Mahakumbh 2025 to Magh Mela 2026 and that too at Prayagraj.

36. As per first information report, the applicants and some unknown persons are alleged to
have subjected two victim boys to penetrative sexual assault. The pen drive, which has been
submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General along with his written submissions in order
to show that the applicant no.1 has given interviews and has held religious rally also shows that the
victims were found giving interviews to leading Hindi News Channels, which is highly
condemnable and deplorable in the facts and circumstances of the case and not consistent with law
and procedure related to POCSO cases.

37. It is also noteworthy that the victims have not stated anything regarding commission of the
offence with them to their parents and they have confided to one stranger, the first informant,
Ashutsh Brahmachari. The reason for confiding to the first informant as given by the victims is that
the first informant used to visit the applicant no.1 and used to garland him and touch his feet,
therefore, he was a right person to be informed about the commission of the offence. The above
reasoning given by the victims also appears to be unusual and not consistent with a normal course
of human conduct.

38.