Ram Mandir Donation Theft Case: ₹58 Lakh Recovered Before FIR, Delay in Complaint Raises Questions.

₹58 Lakh Recovered Before FIR, Delay in Complaint Questions. In the Ram Mandir donation theft case in Ayodhya, fresh revelations have come to light and it is reported that the accused was even tracking nearly ₹58 lakh without the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The development has brought up queries about how and when the legal action should have begun and the order of events. The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust alerted over irregularities on the temple’s collection drive on June 4, reports said.

On the next day, officers of the trust, in the presence of security officers, allegedly raided the homes of the accused and recovered approximately ₹58 lakh. The rest of the sum was then remitted by banking service to the trust between 5th and 8th of June. It is reported that a total of ₹79.85 lakh has been recovered so far. The recovery, however, has raised a huge controversy as the FIR in the case had been lodged reportedly close to 20 days later. The delay has raised questions about why legal action was not taken immediately after the alleged embezzlement was discovered and a significant amount of the money recovered. There has also been media reporting that the trust did not use its official vehicles, but rather private vehicles, in the recovery. The claims have fueled the current controversy, but the trust has not made public any details regarding the reason for not filing the complaint earlier.

In the meantime, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case has broadened its investigation and the duration of its investigation has been extended by another 15 days. It is believed the alleged misappropriation could have been more substantial than the estimated initial amount of about ₹80 lakh and investigators are trying to find out if there was a bigger financial irregularity or a network. Eight individuals have been arrested so far in relation to the case. They have been interviewed as investigators dig deeper into the money trail, the actions of those who may have been involved and the circumstances surrounding the alleged theft. The investigation is continuing and officials are expected to find out if there were any procedural lapses in the investigation, such as the delay in lodging the FIR. Further action will depend on the outcome of the SIT’s investigation and authorities have yet to make any conclusive findings.