The court acknowledges special circumstances and procedural discrepancies, imposing stringent conditions on media interactions during investigation and trial.
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar and Swami Pratyakchaitanya Mukundanand Giri. The bail was granted in a high-profile case involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The judgment was delivered by Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, who considered the special circumstances surrounding the case, discrepancies in victim statements, delays in reporting, and lack of corroborative medical evidence.
The court acknowledged the unique procedural context where the applicants directly approached the High Court for anticipatory bail, bypassing the Sessions Court. This was deemed permissible under special circumstances, particularly due to the Special Judge (POCSO) Act's directive for FIR registration. The court rejected the state's preliminary objection on the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application, citing precedents that allow High Court intervention in exceptional situations.
Justice Sinha highlighted several inconsistencies in the allegations, including the victims’ educational background and discrepancies between their statements and the FIR. The court noted the delay in reporting the alleged incidents and the absence of substantial medical evidence corroborating the claims. Furthermore, the court criticized the media coverage involving victims, stating it was inconsistent with legal procedures under POCSO.
In granting bail, the court imposed stringent conditions, including a prohibition on media interaction regarding the case by all parties involved. The applicants were also directed not to tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or leave the country without court permission. The judgment emphasized the need for a balanced approach, ensuring both the applicants' rights and the integrity of the investigation.
This case has attracted significant media attention, underscoring the sensitive nature of allegations against a prominent religious figure. The court's decision reflects a careful examination of procedural lapses and factual discrepancies, aiming to uphold justice while maintaining stringent oversight during ongoing investigations.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail granted considering discrepancies in facts and procedural lapses, while directing stringent conditions including prohibition on media interaction regarding the case.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 BNSS, Section 29 POCSO Act, Sections 5(1), 6, 3, 4(2), 16, 17 POCSO Act, Sections 351(3), 173(4), 175(3), 180, 183 BNSS
