There has been a major development in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir offerings theft case. The Supreme Court was told on Monday that the temple’s CCTV footage had captured not 70 but 105 incidents of offerings being stolen.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta briefed the court on the investigation based on the status report submitted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT).
He said the SIT’s investigation was almost complete. The SIT identified the accused after examining CCTV footage, witness statements and other evidence. Receipts for offerings and valuables are generated through software, and the items are kept in an SBI locker. The court took the SIT’s status report on record.
Earlier, on 23 June, the first SIT had submitted its preliminary investigation report to the state government. According to the report, around 70 suspected incidents were captured on CCTV between 27 April and 5 June. The footage showed the eight accused arrested by the police hiding bundles of currency notes in their pockets and shoes. A second SIT was formed on the Supreme Court’s directions and is conducting the investigation.
Charge sheet to be filed by 25 September
The Solicitor General said the SIT would file the charge sheet by 25 September. The Supreme Court directed the magistrate to act on the charge sheet in accordance with the law.
The petitioners had sought a copy of the SIT report, but the Supreme Court refused to provide it. The bench headed by the CJI said it did not want to take the case out of the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. If necessary, the court may issue orders regarding further investigation into the matter.
90 days to be completed on 22 September-will the accused be released on bail?
According to senior advocate Shivam Pandey, in cases where the law requires a chargesheet to be filed within 90 days, the accused may become entitled to statutory, or default, bail if the chargesheet is not filed on time. In this case, the 90-day period is coming to an end. Therefore, the deadline for the police to file the chargesheet has become crucial.
Notice was issued in July
Four petitions were filed in the Supreme Court in July seeking an investigation into the theft of offerings. The Supreme Court issued notices to the Central government, the Uttar Pradesh government and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.
The petitioners include RJD MP Sudhakar Singh, lawyer NK Goswami, Ajay Kumar Rai and the Hindu Dharma Parishad. The petition also seeks a complete audit of the Ram Temple Trust’s funds.
FIR registered against eight people on 25 June; all in jail
An FIR was registered against eight people at the Ram Janmabhoomi police station on 25 June. They include Ramshankar Yadav alias Tinnu Yadav, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Yadav, Subhash Srivastava, Avinash Shukla, Karunesh Pandey and Ramashankar Mishra. Police arrested all the accused and sent them to jail.
The accused have been booked under sections relating to theft from the temple, theft of property by an employee, criminal breach of trust, helping conceal or use stolen property, criminal conspiracy and committing an offence with a shared intention. All of them are lodged in Faizabad jail.
Police outlined the accused’s different roles
According to the police, Ramshankar Yadav alias Tinnu had the keys to the donation boxes without any formal order. Anukalp Mishra and Lavkush Mishra were involved in counting the cash. The police claim that around ₹20 lakh was recovered from Anukalp’s house and around ₹10 lakh from Lavkush’s house.
Manish Yadav, Subhash Srivastava, Avinash Shukla, Karunesh Pandey and Ramashankar Mishra have also been named as being involved in counting the cash. According to the police, ₹5 lakh was recovered from Avinash Shukla’s bank account.
CCTV and electronic evidence also collected
The police examined CCTV footage from the temple premises. Registers related to the counting of offerings and statements from employees were also included in the investigation. Forensic and electronic evidence has also been collected. The chargesheet will include details of the alleged modus operandi of the theft, the role of the accused and the recoveries made from them.
