The Patiala House Courts, Delhi refused to accept the bail application of the accused Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswat, a monk associated with Sri Sharada Peetham, Sringeri. Judge Dr. Hardeep Kaur denied bail as the investigation proved to be nascent and the accused was absconding with serious charges against him.
The case arose when the complainant alleged that Swami, in conspiracy with others, committed forgery, cheating, fraud, criminal breach of trust, and misappropriation of properties and funds belonging to Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Mahasamsthanam Dakshinamnaya Sri Sharada Peetham, Sringeri. The complainant, authorized by a General Power of Attorney dated 07.03.2024 to represent the Peetham, claimed that after taking charge as Administrator and CEO, he discovered during a preliminary audit in December 2024 that Swami had created a fraudulent trust named Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management Research Foundation Trust. This was distinct from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) approved Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management Research. Swami had unlawfully vested a plot under this entity, sublet it without approval, and later renamed the trust as SRISIIM Research Foundation through deeds executed in 2010 and 2024, thereby gaining powers to distribute Peetham’s property. The investigation revealed that funds meant for the Peetham were diverted for the Swami’s personal use, AICTE records were fabricated, bank accounts were operated under false identities, and about Rs. 50–55 lakhs were withdrawn from a Yes Bank account even after the FIR, along with allegations of forged documents, dual passports, and multiple fraudulent accounts.
Swami’s counsel Senior Advocate Ajay Burman argued that mere allegations cannot convert a civil dispute into a criminal offence and that the FIR was an abuse of process intended to disrupt the lawful administration of the Trust, continuously managed with the Peetham’s knowledge and consent. He stated that all documents and sub-leases were valid and approved, and as Chairman-cum-Managing Director, he oversaw policy and guidance, while day-to-day operations were handled by administrative staff, so any irregularities arose from their mismanagement. Swami argued that the FIR was arbitrary and hasty, as no preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS was conducted and no prior permission from the Deputy Superintendent of Police was sought, despite the alleged offences being punishable with three to seven years’ imprisonment. Mr. Ajay also submitted that criminalizing a civil matter is a misuse of process and that arrest is unnecessary, as the evidence is documentary and he is willing to cooperate.The prosecution strongly opposed they alleged that Swami while acting as the attorney of the institute conspired with others to execute an unauthorized deed, changed the institute’s name without AICTE approval,misappropriated approximately Rs. 40–50 crores, created a fraudulent Trust, and diverted funds for personal gain. Swami allegedly fabricated AICTE approval letters, obtained two passports and PAN cards under different names with inconsistent personal details, operated multiple bank accounts, and withdrew significant funds after the FIR. The prosecution also contended that custodial interrogation is necessary to establish the chain of fraud and prevent tampering with evidence, emphasizing the Swami’s influential position and possibility of absconding.
The Court after noting the submissions form the parties concluded that the allegations against Swami were serious involving criminal breach of trust, fraud, misappropriation of funds, forgery, and creation of a fraudulent Trust to divert Peetham’s property and revenues. It also noted the applicant/accused’s absence and switched-off phone indicated a risk of absconding thus invoking Section 316(5) BNS. The Court relied on P. Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157 and held that since the investigation was at a nascent stage, custodial interrogation was needed to establish the full chain of fraud, cheating, conspiracy, and misappropriation. Accordingly the Court dismissed the bail application stating that nothing stated in the order would be taken as the Court expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Appearances:
For State – Additional PP Sh. Irfan Ahmed
For Applicant/Accused- IO Insp. Johnson Jacob in person. Sh. Ajay Burman, Senior Advocate along with Sh. Varun Seth and Ms. Tanya Harnal
For the Complainant- Advs- Sh. Kumar Vaibhav, Sh. Rushab Aggarwal, Sh. Karan Tarkar, Ms. Riddhima Aggarwal, Ms. Dakshaja Upadhyaya, Sh.Sunder, Sh. Vivek and Sh. Japnish Singh Bhatia,
