Karnataka High Court Cancels Vachanananda Swami's Anticipatory Bail In POCSO Case

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 25) cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by a sessions court to Vachanananda Swami booked in a POCSO case over allegations of sodomy, remarking that it was troubled by the manner in which bail was granted. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218]

The court was hearing the complainant's plea challenging Sessions Court's May 2 order granting anticipatory bail to Vachanananda Swamiji who has been booked for offences under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. In the interim, the plea sought a stay on the May 2 order.

Earlier this week the court had orally remarked that it will cancel Vachanananda's anticipatory bail. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dictated:

"The petitioner is before the court calling in question an anticipatory bail granted to respondent 2...The learned counsel for respondent 2 now submits that police have filed a chargesheet after investigation. Though in law once an anticipatory bail is granted it would run even after filing of chargesheet, this court is not examining whether filing of chargesheet would obliterated anticipatory bail granted. No it is not. 

The manner in which the pre-arrest bail is granted is what troubles this court as one week prior to registration of complaint itself a bail is granted under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. Therefore going to the offence, and manner in which it is what leads to obliteration of the subject order, and not the mere fact of filing of the chargesheet. In that light I deem it appropriate to obliterate this order and reserve liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate court to seek regular bail".

The court however granted liberty to Vachanananda to approach the trial court within three weeks to seek regular bail. 

"In light of the anticipatory bail being in subsistence today and the petitioner not being taken into custody on any ground, I deem it appropriate to extend the anticipatory bail for period of three weeks from today, with a direction to the concerned court that as and when the respondent would file the application seeking bail it shall be decided in light of directions issued by the apex court for expeditious disposal of bail applications". 

The petitioner's counsel said that Vachanananda be put to strict terms as already an FIR has been filed for threatening the complainant. 

Meanwhile Vachanananda's counsel said that his regular bail plea must be considered by the concerned court uninfluenced by the present proceedings. 

The high court thus directed that the concerned court shall consider his bail application on its merits without being influenced by the observations made by the high court in the present order. 

Meanwhile Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesh argued that the victim should have been heard by the trial court. To which the high court observed, "Apart from the aforesaid, the very fact that the victim has not been heard in a case concerning POCSO would also be a ground for obliteration of the order granting bail".

Case title: SMT REKHA v/s STATE BY AND ANOTHER

CRL.P 7944/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218