Delhi court refuses anticipatory bail to Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati over serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and misappropriation of funds from Sringeri Peetham. Custodial interrogation deemed necessary to uncover the full chain of alleged criminal acts.
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Friday refused to grant anticipatory bail to Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati in a criminal case involving serious charges of fraud, forgery, criminal breach of trust, and misuse of funds that belonged to the Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Mahasamsthanam Dakshinamnaya Sri Sharada Peetham, Sringeri.
The case was heard by Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur at Patiala House Courts, who said that the charges were of a very serious nature and that the Swami’s custodial interrogation was necessary to properly investigate and “establish the full chain of alleged criminal acts.”
The bail plea was filed under Section 482 BNSS (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.) and was strongly opposed by both the investigating officer and the complainant.
Swami Chaitanyananda is known as a senior monk of the Arsha Vidya Order and a disciple of Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswati. He is also internationally recognized as a scholar, author, and educationist.
The Swami’s lawyers argued that the case was not criminal in nature but arose out of a civil dispute related to the management of the Peetham.
They alleged that the complaint was politically and personally motivated with an aim to disturb the lawful administration of the Trust. His legal team highlighted his academic and spiritual contributions, his deep association with the Peetham, and stressed that
“he had not personally handled day-to-day administrative or operational matters of the affiliated institute.”
The defence also argued that the FIR was an “abuse of the legal process.” They claimed that if there were any irregularities, these were due to the actions of the administrative staff and associates, not the Swami.
They further stressed that
“Swami Chaitanyananda had no personal gain from the purported mismanagement.”
His counsel pointed out that he had
“deep roots in society, posed no flight risk, and was ready to cooperate with the investigation.”
On the other hand, the complainant and the Additional Public Prosecutor gave a detailed account of the alleged fraud. They accused the Swami of colluding with others to form a fake trust called the Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management Research Foundation Trust.
It was alleged that through this fraudulent trust, funds of the Peetham were diverted, property was sublet without authorization, and fake AICTE approvals were used to mislead authorities.
Investigators claimed that the Swami operated
“bank accounts in multiple names, obtained two passports under different identities, and misappropriated approximately Rs. 50-55 lakh.”
The investigation also revealed that the property and funds in question were connected to Plot No. 7 in Vasant Kunj, Delhi, which had been allotted to the Peetham by the Delhi Development Authority in 1998 for educational purposes.
It was alleged that the Swami and his associates wrongfully transferred the plot into the fraudulent trust, leased it out, and diverted the income for personal benefit. The authorities also alleged that they went so far as to “fabricate AICTE approval letters to mislead authorities.”
While deciding the bail plea, the court relied on the precedent set in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157, which held that anticipatory bail in cases involving powerful or influential persons could obstruct free and fair investigation.
The judge noted that
“custodial interrogation is crucial for uncovering hidden evidence, particularly in cases of large-scale financial fraud and conspiracy.”
Judge Hardeep Kaur observed that since the allegations were serious, the investigation was still at a “nascent stage,” and there was also a need to prevent tampering with evidence, anticipatory bail could not be granted.
The Court further clarified that
“the dismissal of the bail application did not amount to an opinion on the merits of the case.”
The judge also remarked that the arguments and case laws cited by the defence were not applicable to the present matter, given the seriousness of the charges. The application was therefore rejected, and a copy of the order was directed to be provided dasti.
Case Title:
State v. Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on NEET-PG 2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
