The Patiala House Court on Friday reserved its order on the anticipatory bail plea of Chaitanyananda Saraswati, who is facing allegations of large-scale financial irregularities.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Dr Hardeep Kaur heard submissions from both sides and said the order would be pronounced either later in the evening or on Saturday.
Defence Arguments
Appearing for Saraswati, Senior Advocate Ajay Burman argued that the allegations were unfounded. He said the creation of a trust was a legal requirement for running an educational institution, and no property had been sold.
“Everything is there, and the institute is being run by the trustees,” Burman submitted.
The defence contended that Saraswati went outside Delhi on July 19, but an FIR was filed immediately without a proper inquiry. Counsel also claimed his client was willing to join the investigation but should be granted interim protection to prevent arrest.
Burman further alleged that sensitive case material was being leaked to the media, prejudicing the matter against his client.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The prosecution strongly opposed anticipatory bail, arguing that substantial recovery was pending.
“We have to recover ₹30 crore. He withdrew ₹60 lakh after he absconded. We have to take him to 10 places and to effect the recovery,” the prosecutor said.
According to the prosecution, E. Murli, a chartered accountant, uncovered irregularities showing that Saraswati and others had fraudulently created another trust—the Shri Sharda Institute of Management Research Foundation Trust. It was alleged that ₹20 crore in rent and other funds were diverted into this trust, which was then misappropriated.
The prosecution further pointed to recent suspicious transactions:
- ₹60 lakh withdrawn in the last month.
- ₹55 lakh withdrawn from Canara Bank after the FIR was registered.
- Additional allegations included subletting properties, holding two PAN cards, two passports, and multiple bank accounts under different names, and seeking ₹1 crore from the complainant in exchange for adding a new course.
- Police also claimed Saraswati misrepresented himself as a member of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council and a UN representative.
Court’s Observation
During the hearing, the court noted, “An FIR has been lodged; you go and join the investigation.”
The prosecution insisted that granting interim protection would hinder recovery efforts. The defence countered, questioning whether custody was necessary in cases of alleged financial misappropriation.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
