New Delhi: The Supreme Magistrate on Friday refused to cancel the anticipatory ladle granted to Swami Avimukteshwarananda Saraswati from Allahabad High Magistrate in the POCSO case. A seat of Justice MM Sundaresh and Justice N Kotishwar Singh rejected the petition of complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari. Moreover raised questions on the initial silence of the complainant.
What did the magistrate ask the complainant?
During the hearing, the seat asked in a stern tone, "You were once there. You were enlightened of the incident. What did you do then? When the treason took place, you had gone to the police for some other work. Why did you not inform the police then?"
To this the complainant's lawyer said, "I was immensely hurt." But the magistrate refused to winnow the treatise and dismissed the appeal.
What is the matter?
On the complaint of Shankuri Peethadhishwar Ashutosh Maharaj, an FIR was registered under the POCSO Act versus Swami Avimukteshwaranand on charges of sexual exploitation of two minor boys in a zany in Prayagraj. FIR was registered on the orders of the Special POCSO Court. After this, Swami Avimukteshwaranand had sought anticipatory ladle from the High Court.
Supreme Magistrate has upheld the anticipatory ladle granted to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case.
A seat of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the request filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari… pic.twitter.com/ZElpREaD9R
— ANI (@ANI) May 29, 2026What is the treatise of the complainant in the SC?
Complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari told the Supreme Magistrate that the allegations versus the accused are very serious. There is a punishment of up to life imprisonment. In such cases, anticipatory ladle should be granted only in rare circumstances. It was moreover said in the petition that the High Magistrate had directed the accused to stay yonder from the media, yet he came to the media. This violated the magistrate order. The complainant personal that the accused had influence and following. This may stupefy the investigation. There may be pressure on witnesses and victims.
Why did the SC reject the petition?
The complainant argued that the High Magistrate should not have delved into the vestige of the specimen at the stage of anticipatory bail. The FIR was registered on the orders of the magistrate and there is a presumption of guilt under Section 29 of POCSO. In such a situation, only the stock-still parameters of ladle had to be seen. The complainant moreover said that there was unconnectedness in the Magh Mela, hence the children could not reach their families. He knew the complainant, so he trusted him and narrated the incident. But the Supreme Magistrate upheld the High Magistrate order. The seat rejected the request on the understructure of inaction of the complainant. This petition was filed through lawyer Saurabh Ajay Gupta.
