<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stay the Allahabad High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Avimukteshwaranand">Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati</a> in a case registered against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.</p><p>A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the plea filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari, who had challenged the high court’s order.</p><p>“Sorry, we are not going to interfere,” the bench observed, while also questioning the petitioner over the delay in approaching the police despite having information about the alleged abuse of minors.</p><p>On March 25, the Allahabad High Court had granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari. </p><p>The high court, however, restrained the first informant, the applicants, and the disciple from making any statements to the media regarding the matter.</p>.Allahabad High Court rejects contempt petition against Swami Avimukteshwaranand.<p>The high court had further rejected the state’s contention that there exists a statutory presumption of guilt against the accused under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, clarifying that such presumption cannot be invoked at the pre-arrest stage before charges are framed.</p><p>The case stems from a complaint filed by Ashutosh Brahmachari in a district court, alleging sexual exploitation of several young disciples (batuks) by Swami Avimukteshwaranand, Mukundanand Brahmachari, and others. </p><p>Acting on the complaint, a POCSO special court on February 21 directed the registration of an FIR and ordered an investigation.</p><p>Accordingly, an FIR was lodged on March 22 at Jhunsi police station in Prayagraj under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).</p><p>Following the registration of the case, Swami Avimukteshwaranand approached the Allahabad High Court for anticipatory bail. The high court had on February 27 granted him interim protection from arrest and sought responses from all parties.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stay the Allahabad High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Avimukteshwaranand">Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati</a> in a case registered against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.</p><p>A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the plea filed by complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari, who had challenged the high court’s order.</p><p>“Sorry, we are not going to interfere,” the bench observed, while also questioning the petitioner over the delay in approaching the police despite having information about the alleged abuse of minors.</p><p>On March 25, the Allahabad High Court had granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple Mukundanand Brahmachari. </p><p>The high court, however, restrained the first informant, the applicants, and the disciple from making any statements to the media regarding the matter.</p>.Allahabad High Court rejects contempt petition against Swami Avimukteshwaranand.<p>The high court had further rejected the state’s contention that there exists a statutory presumption of guilt against the accused under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, clarifying that such presumption cannot be invoked at the pre-arrest stage before charges are framed.</p><p>The case stems from a complaint filed by Ashutosh Brahmachari in a district court, alleging sexual exploitation of several young disciples (batuks) by Swami Avimukteshwaranand, Mukundanand Brahmachari, and others. </p><p>Acting on the complaint, a POCSO special court on February 21 directed the registration of an FIR and ordered an investigation.</p><p>Accordingly, an FIR was lodged on March 22 at Jhunsi police station in Prayagraj under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).</p><p>Following the registration of the case, Swami Avimukteshwaranand approached the Allahabad High Court for anticipatory bail. The high court had on February 27 granted him interim protection from arrest and sought responses from all parties.</p>