On May 29,2026,the Supreme Court of India upheld anticipatory bail granted to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple,Mukundanand Giri,in connection with serious child sexual abuse complaint.
This came after spiritual leader Ashutosh Brahmachari Maharaj filed Special Leave Petition (SLP),challenging earlier Allahabad High Court order which had given bail protection to accused . So for now,that protection continues and they will not be arrested while investigation goes on.
But allegations here are not small thing ah . Complaint involves alleged sexual abuse of minors under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,and that is why whole matter is being watched very closely.
At same time,Allahabad High Court had earlier pointed to multiple issues in prosecution version . Court noted delay in filing complaint and contradictions in witness statements,which became part of reason for granting anticipatory bail .
Few things standing out clearly in this case:
- Supreme Court upheld anticipatory bail for Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and Mukundanand Giri.
- Allahabad High Court cited delays in complaint and contradictions in witness statements.
- Case involves serious child sexual abuse allegations under POCSO Act.
As per court observations,the first informant reported alleged offense six days after being informed,and reason given was personal engagements . For court,this delay seems to have mattered,especially along with other inconsistencies mentioned during hearing .
And accused side also argued that they were being falsely implicated . They claimed prosecution case had gaps,including absence of corroborative medical evidence . Tbh,in cases like this,courtroom discussion becomes very uncomfortable because allegation is extremely serious,but legal test for arrest and bail still runs separately .
The Allahabad High Court had also put conditions while granting bail . Accused were told to cooperate with investigation and refrain from media interactions . Meanwhile,Uttar Pradesh government and complainant argued that custodial interrogation was needed because allegations are grave .
But Supreme Court chose to maintain same position for now,meaning anticipatory bail stays while investigation continues . And that leaves one difficult question hanging… how will truth be tested when case has both serious allegations and claimed inconsistencies at same time…
