Justice M. Nagaprasanna terms the manner of granting anticipatory bail ‘shocking’, issues notice to seer in child abuse case
The Karnataka High Court has raised serious concerns over the anticipatory bail granted to Vachanananda Swamiji of the Panchamasali Gurupeeth in Harihar, Davanagere district, in a POCSO case involving allegations of child abuse and cruelty. The court observed that the circumstances under which bail was granted appear questionable and has sought a response from the accused seer.
Bengaluru: The legal battle surrounding Vachanananda Swamiji, the former head of the Panchamasali Gurupeeth in Harihar, has intensified after the Karnataka High Court expressed strong reservations over the anticipatory bail granted to him by a Davanagere court in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
A bench headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while hearing a petition filed by the mother of a minor boy challenging the grant of anticipatory bail, observed that the manner in which the relief was extended to the seer was “shocking” and appeared legally unsustainable on the face of it.
“The manner in which anticipatory bail was granted is shocking. Prima facie, the procedure adopted does not appear to be correct,” the High Court observed during the hearing.
High Court scrutinises anticipatory bail granted before complaint filing
The controversy stems from the fact that anticipatory bail was reportedly granted to Vachanananda Swamiji by the Davanagere District Court on April 21, even before the formal complaint in the case was filed.
The petitioner, the mother of a boy associated with the mutt, approached the High Court challenging the legality of the bail order and sought its cancellation.
Taking note of the submissions, the High Court questioned the procedural basis of the district court’s decision and indicated that the matter required closer judicial scrutiny.
Notice issued to Vachanananda Swamiji in POCSO case
Observing that serious offences have been invoked in the case, the High Court issued notice to Vachanananda Swamiji and directed him to respond to the petition.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for June 23.
Legal observers believe the High Court’s remarks could have significant implications for the anticipatory bail order and may influence the future course of the proceedings.
“Serious provisions of the POCSO Act have been invoked. The issue requires detailed examination,” the court noted.
Background of the Vachanananda Swamiji POCSO case
The case emerged following allegations by children residing in the mutt, who reportedly accused the seer of verbal abuse, harassment and ill-treatment.
Following these complaints, officials of the Child Welfare Committee visited the institution and conducted inquiries into the allegations.
Subsequently, a complaint filed by the mother of a minor boy led to the registration of a POCSO case against Vachanananda Swamiji. Investigators later questioned the seer and conducted medical examinations as part of the probe.
The allegations have drawn widespread attention due to the stature of the religious institution and the nature of the offences alleged.
Panchamasali Gurupeeth leadership dispute preceded controversy
The legal troubles for Vachanananda Swamiji came amid a separate dispute over the administration of the Panchamasali Gurupeeth.
Earlier in April, trustees of the institution convened a meeting at the mutt near Hanagawadi in Harihar. According to sources, 13 of the 15 trustees participated and unanimously decided to remove Vachanananda Swamiji from the Peetha.
The trustees reportedly cited issues related to the management of two religious seats. Although he was elevated as Jagadguru in 2018, the trustees alleged that repeated requests to choose between the two Peethas were not complied with, eventually leading to his removal.
Will the High Court cancel the anticipatory bail?
With the Karnataka High Court openly questioning the circumstances under which anticipatory bail was granted, attention is now focused on the June 23 hearing.
The court has not yet ruled on the validity of the bail order. However, its observations have raised the possibility of further judicial intervention if procedural irregularities are established.
