.jpg)
On May 2, a special court in Davanagere granted Vachanananda Swamiji anticipatory bail, citing social media statements by a mutt trustee that suggested attempts were being made to unjustly incriminate him.
Vachanananda Swamiji, Karnataka High Court
In a case involving accusations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday harshly condemned Vachanananda Swamiji, Jagadguru of the Veerashaiva Lingayatha Panchamasali Peetha, and threatened to revoke the anticipatory bail that had been granted to him.
Orally, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "You're still with the boys! Both young boys and girls are not safer.
The trial court's anticipatory bail order would be overturned by the court, allowing the Swamiji to request normal bail.I'll cancel and put this order on hold. It was not possible to give this bail. The judge declared, "I will reserve liberty for regular bail."
M. Nagaprasanna, Justice
The Court made it clear that anticipatory bail is not revoked simply by filing a chargesheet. It did, however, add that interference was needed due to the way bail had been granted.Anticipatory bail will not be granted simply because a charge sheet has been submitted. However, I shall set aside the way it is granted. In order to obtain bail, I shall reserve liberty.There is no way that this anticipatory bail can continue.It is completely impossible to give such anticipatory bail. And that's sodomy. It is not possible to grant bail, especially this type of bail! The Court declared, "I've already issued an order on it.
The Court once stated that as the Swamiji was already benefiting from anticipatory bail, some protection may be extended for a brief time so that he could get regular bail from the appropriate court.The only thing is that I will grant him 10 or 15 days of anticipatory bail, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, so he can apply for normal bail."
The Court stated in response to a different case filed against the Swamiji, "How can I engage into it? I'll be acting in the same manner as the court (below).
When the respondent's attorney appeared, they stated that the chargesheet had already been presented and requested a copy of the petition so that they could record their objections. He emphasized that the Swamiji had been dismissed from the institution and contended that the accusations were the result of disagreements between the mutt's trustees.The trustees announced their intention to make a complaint against the respondent at a public conference before to filing this petition. That was the fear. "I put those documents on file," the attorney said.
It was also argued that papers pertaining to the press conference will be presented to the court and that the trustees had publicly declared their intention to file such complaints.
On behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate DR Ravishankar argued that the respondent was already taking advantage of the anticipatory bail. He proposed that the Court shorten the protection period to one week if the respondent wanted the case heard on Monday, June 29.Ravishankar said, "It's a take it or leave it offer."
Additionally, he said that no other documents had been produced aside from the bail order and claimed that the complainant had contacted the police once again after the current petition was filed, which resulted in the filing of a second complaint.
On May 2, a special court in Davanagere granted Vachanananda Swamiji anticipatory bail, citing social media statements by a mutt trustee that implied attempts were being made to unjustly incriminate him during an administrative conflict within the Peetha.
The Veerashaiva Lingayatha Panchamasali Peetha was founded in 2008, according to the Swamiji's plea before the special court. Internal disagreements about its management emerged when Dr. Mahanta Shivacharya Swamiji passed away in 2012. According to Swamiji, he started accusing trustees of financial violations after assuming leadership as Jagadguru. This led to animosity and attempts to remove him from the Peetha.
He further claimed that trustees had encouraged parents of children staying at the camp to file complaints by threatening to file a POCSO case against him through interactions with the media. Additionally, he asserted that political animosity resulted from his participation in the Panchamasali reserve movement.
Also Read Vachanananda Swamiji is granted anticipatory bail by a Karnataka court in the POCSO case
The Lakshmeshwar Police Station in the Gadag district received a complaint on May 7 from the mother of an alleged victim. Before being moved to the Harihar Rural Police Station on May 8, a zero FIR was filed under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act as well as Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the lawsuit, Swamiji sexually assaulted the complainant's son and other youngsters on March 20, 2024. It further claimed that youngsters living at the mutt were sexually abused between 2021 and 2024, including being stripped naked before school, forced to massage Swamiji's intimate areas, and inappropriately touched.
Children who refused were allegedly beaten, threatened with death if they reported the occurrences, and denied food, according to the complaint.
