A 74,000-page chargesheet filed against eight individuals in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation fraud case reveals a lengthy investigation that examined cash handling, digital records, and asset seizures in great detail. The document was submitted to Ayodhya’s special anti-corruption court on September 23, 2026, and it alleges that temple offerings were manipulated before the money ever reached banking channels.
Eight accused named in cash diversion probe
The chargesheet lists Anukul Mishra, Avinash Shukla (aka Shani), Karunesh Pandey, Manish Kumar Yadav, Lakshman Mishra, Ramashankar Mishra, Ramashankar Yadav (aka Tinnu), and Subhash Shrivastav as the alleged participants. Investigators say irregularities began in the counting room rather than during later bank transfers, because they traced discrepancies from the moment cash was tallied to the point where deposits were supposed to be made.
Key evidence includes 105 CCTV incidents in which footage allegedly captures cash being altered or concealed. Those clips were cross-referenced with mobile-phone data, call-detail records (CDRs), and multiple witness testimonies. Although no fraud was detected during the actual bank transfers, the counting room emerged as the primary focus of alleged tampering.
Hidden cash, digital trails, and seized assets
One notable finding was 225,000 rupees recovered from the counting room’s bathroom on June 4, 2026. Police state that the money was hidden after the counting process began, and that a video of the discovery was sent to then-trust secretary Champat Rai. The chargesheet also cites statements from Rai, Dr. Anil Mishra, and Gopal Raw, although none of those individuals were charged.
Mobile chats and CDRs further implicate the accused in discussions about hiding cash bundles, relocating funds, and coordinating the scheme. The investigators assert that these digital exchanges, when combined with oral evidence, paint a picture of premeditated collusion. Over 79.85 lakh rupees in cash were seized, together with gold, silver jewelry, and USD—some of which were concealed in straw and firewood.
The team also examined the accused’s bank accounts, properties, vehicles, and transactions tied to land, homes, and car purchases. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) recorded 190 witness statements, and it collected bank records, forensic audit reports, and additional digital proof to support the case.
Process failures and verified donations
Subhash Shrivastav, who oversaw the counting room, faces negligence charges for allegedly failing to enforce standard operating procedures (SOPs).
Despite the fraud allegations, the SIT verified 803 high-value donated items listed in the temple’s software, finding no discrepancies in those records. The chargesheet notes that final confirmation of the accusations will depend on how the court scrutinizes the presented evidence.
