Delhi High Court grants bail to religious teacher accused of sodomising male child after five years in custody
Justice Visak Mahajan [01-07-2024]

Read Order: SANTOSHANAND @ KAVITENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR [DEL HC- BAIL APPLN. 1159/2023]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, July 12, 2024: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a religious preacher arrested for sodomising a six-year-old boy in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Justice Vikas Mahajan passed the order, noting that the accused had spent more than five years in custody and that there was a possibility of false implication.

“… there is no doubt that the allegations against the petitioner are serious, however, this court cannot brush aside the fact that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the changed version of the child victim recorded almost after four months from his first version. Prima facie, this fact has the potential of creating dent in the case of the prosecution,” the Bench observed.

According to the prosecution, on January 15, 2017, a six-year-old boy residing in the Harihar Yoga Ashram in Delhi was allegedly sexually abused by three persons - Amarjeet, Chandan Pandey, and Mangal Pandey. However, after the child was sent to a protection home, he changed his statement and revealed that Swami Santosh Anand had committed the offence and threatened him to implicate the other accused.

Swami Santosh Anand's counsel argued that there were inconsistencies in the child's testimony, creating doubt about the prosecution's case. He also pointed out that the person before whom the child had allegedly changed his statement was not made a witness by the prosecution.

The High Court observed that while the allegations against Swami Santosh Anand were serious, the fact that he was implicated based on the child's changed version recorded almost four months after the initial statement had the potential to create a dent in the prosecution's case. The court also considered that Swami Santosh Anand had already spent a significant period in custody and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars as the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

Granting bail to Swami Santosh Anand, the court imposed several conditions, including appearing before the trial court, not contacting the complainant or witnesses, and providing his address and mobile number to the investigating officer. The court clarified that the observations made in the order were only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the case's merits.