Rajesh Kumar Pandey TNNPrayagraj: : Allahabad high court has sought UP govt’s reply on a petition filed by Ashutosh Maharaj, the first informant in the POCSO FIR against Swami Avimukteshwaranand, challenging the opening of his history sheet by UP Police.A history-sheeter is a person with a long or habitual criminal record, tracked by police through a confidential “history sheet” for surveillance and preventive purposes.While hearing the petition filed by Ashutosh Maharaj, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena in its April 28 order directed to list the case on May 13 for the next hearing.Appearing in person before the high court, Ashutosh Maharaj, who claims to be the president of Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust (Registered), Mathura, also sought deletion of his name from the police surveillance register.According to Ashutosh Maharaj, the history-sheet was opened against him at the Kandhla police station in Shamli district. However, regarding his criminal history, he submitted that in many cases he had been acquitted after trial. Further, in some cases, proceedings have been stayed, and in others, the cases are of a civil nature, relating to religious property.The court clarified that his petition for interim relief would be considered at the next hearing.Ashutosh Maharaj is also one of the plaintiffs in the Shahi Idgah-Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute cases of Mathura pending before Allahabad high court.Further, acting on his application that a Special Pocso court in Prayagraj had directed the police to register a case of sexual assault under the Pocso Act against 56-year-old Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and others.Ashutosh Maharaj had approached the special judge after local police allegedly failed to act on initial written complaints sent to the SHO concerned and Prayagraj police commissioner. He had alleged that two minors (Batuks) were sexually abused by the accused persons during Magh Mela at Prayagraj in Jan this year.The high court had on March 25 granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand and his disciple in the case, while questioning the ‘unusual’ conduct of the minor victims in confiding about the alleged offense in Ashutosh Maharaj, rather than in their natural guardians.
