Eight Accused in Ayodhya Ram Temple Donation Scam Sent to 14 More Days in Judicial Custody

Ayodhya: A court has remanded all eight accused arrested in the Ayodhya Ram Temple donation scam case to a further 14 days of judicial custody, after their previously sanctioned custody period lapsed. The accused were produced via video conferencing before Special Judge Rajat Verma of the anti-corruption court. Special Prosecution Officer Umesh Dubey said police did not seek extended custody for the accused at this stage. The main case against them relates to the alleged misappropriation of donations collected for the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. The accused, who had earlier been in three days of judicial custody, were remanded again once that period expired.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that the temple trust was aware of the multi-crore scam well before it became public, and that Champat Rai and his associates had concealed the matter. Trust members had discovered unaccounted cash at the home of arrested accused Avinash Shukla on June 5. Neither Champat Rai, then general secretary of the trust, nor other members came forward to file a police complaint at the time. Police, too, turned a blind eye despite being aware of the matter. Mahipal Singh, the trust accountant who had filed a complaint against the scam, was subsequently removed from his post by Champat Rai. Mahipal had revealed that Champat Rai had deleted eight months' worth of CCTV footage, and that no one knew the actual account of the gold, silver and jewellery received as donations.

The Yogi Adityanath government reportedly stepped in at a point when the probe threatened to implicate the RSS and BJP, were it to extend to Champat Rai. Following this, Champat Rai and trust member Anil Mishra were dropped from the list of accused. The SIT has registered the case against eight people, including Rai's aide and driver Tinnu Yadav. It was Tinnu who, in violation of rules, held the keys to the donation boxes. Since investigating how the keys came to be in Tinnu's possession would expose Rai's role, the SIT has avoided pursuing that line of inquiry as well.