Delhi Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati in Multi-Crore Fraud Case

Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur at Patiala House Court observed that the offences were serious in nature and required custodial interrogation to establish the full chain of alleged criminal acts.

The bail application, filed under Section 482 BNSS (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), was vigorously opposed by the investigating officer and the complainant.

Swami Chaitanyananda, a senior monk of the Arsha Vidya Order and a disciple of Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswati, is an internationally recognized scholar, author, and educationist.

His counsel argued that the FIR arose from a civil dispute concerning the management of the Peetham and alleged that the complaint was motivated by an attempt to disturb the lawful administration of the Trust. The Swami’s legal team emphasized his academic and spiritual contributions, his longstanding association with the Peetham, and the fact that he had not personally handled day-to-day administrative or operational matters of the affiliated institute.

The accused’s counsel contended that the registered FIR was an abuse of the legal process, asserting that alleged irregularities, if any, arose from the actions of administrative staff and associates, and that Swami Chaitanyananda had no personal gain from the purported mismanagement. Counsel also highlighted that the accused had deep roots in society, posed no flight risk, and was ready to cooperate with the investigation.

The Complainant and the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) presented a detailed narrative alleging that the Swami, in collusion with others, created a fraudulent trust named Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management Research Foundation Trust, diverted funds meant for the Peetham, sublet property without authorization, and manipulated AICTE approvals.

Investigations reportedly revealed that the Swami operated bank accounts in multiple names, obtained two passports under different identities, and misappropriated approximately Rs. 50-55 lakh.

The investigation traced the origins of the property and funds to Plot No. 7 in Vasant Kunj, Delhi, allotted to the Peetham by the DDA in 1998 for educational purposes. The complainant alleged that the Swami and his associates unlawfully vested the plot into the fraudulent trust, sublet it, and diverted revenues for personal gain, including fabricating AICTE approval letters to mislead authorities.

The Court relied on precedents such as P. Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157, which emphasized that anticipatory bail in cases involving influential persons can hinder effective interrogation and investigation. The ASJ stated that custodial interrogation is crucial for uncovering hidden evidence, particularly in cases of large-scale financial fraud and conspiracy.

Given the seriousness of allegations, the ongoing investigation at a "nascent stage", and the need to prevent tampering with evidence, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to Swami Chaitanyananda.

The Bench clarified that the dismissal of the bail application did not amount to an opinion on the merits of the case.

The Court noted that the accused’s arguments and judgments cited in support of the bail plea were distinguishable and inapplicable given the facts and gravity of the present matter.

The application was disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be provided dasti.