Ram Mandir donation theft case: 5 accused lived within 200 metres of each other

Close residential proximity and family ties among five of the eight accused have emerged as a key focus of the police investigation into the alleged Ram Temple donation theft case, with investigators probing whether the alleged crime was orchestrated through a pre-planned conspiracy.

According to police sources, five of the eight accused either reside within 100 to 200 metres of each other in Ayodhya's Kaushalpuri Colony or are related. Investigators are now examining whether the accused were acquainted before the alleged offence and whether their proximity played a role in planning and executing the alleged theft.

Police found that the residences of Lav Kush Mishra, Avinash Shukla and Anukalp Mishra are located in the same neighbourhood. Avinash Shukla's house is situated directly behind Lav Kush Mishra's residence, while Anukalp Mishra's house, purchased around two years ago, lies about 200 metres away.

Similarly, the houses of Manish Yadav and Tinnu Yadav are adjacent to each other.

Investigators believe the pattern of close residential proximity and family ties could provide crucial leads as they continue probing the alleged conspiracy behind the Ram Temple donation theft case.

POLICE CONDUCTED RAIDS

As the investigation gathered pace, Ayodhya Police on Sunday carried out simultaneous searches at the residences of all eight accused in connection with the alleged donation embezzlement. Police teams, accompanied by local magistrates, searched the homes of the accused, including Lav Kush Mishra, Avinash Shukla and Ramashankar Yadav.

The searches came two days after a court remanded all eight accused to judicial custody until June 29. Police are expected to seek their custodial remand when they are produced before the court on Monday.

TRUST KNEW OF MISAPPROPRIATION?

The latest findings come hours after fresh source-based claims suggested that the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust had become aware of the suspected misappropriation of temple donations days before the matter entered the public domain.

According to sources, representatives of the Trust, acting on the instructions of General Secretary Champat Rai, accompanied police to the residence of one of the accused, Avinash Shukla, on June 5. During the search, cash was allegedly recovered, indicating that the matter had already come to the attention of the authorities.

However, despite the search operation, the Trust did not lodge a formal complaint with the police at the time, sources claimed. They further alleged that the June 5 action was carried out informally and was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR).

The alleged embezzlement became public only on June 7, sparking widespread attention and raising questions over the delay in initiating formal legal proceedings.

THE INVESTIGATION SO FAR

The Uttar Pradesh government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on June 13 following a request from the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust after allegations of misappropriation of Ram Temple donations surfaced.

The controversy gained political traction on June 7 after Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav cited reports alleging that crores of rupees from temple donations were unaccounted for and urged the courts to take cognisance of the matter.

At the time, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) international president Alok Kumar accused the Samajwadi Party and the Congress of attempting to politicise the issue ahead of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.

AKHILESH YADAV VERIFIED BEFORE SPEAKING

Speaking on the alleged Ram Temple donation theft case, Samajwadi Party leader Pawan Pandey claimed that party chief Akhilesh Yadav had prior information about the alleged irregularities.

Pandey said Akhilesh Yadav had called him to verify reports of alleged theft of temple donations and ornaments, after which the Samajwadi Party chief raised the issue publicly on social media.

He also alleged that the revelations sparked nationwide attention and described the issue as a matter of grave concern for Ayodhya's image. He questioned how information about the alleged theft first came into the public domain and called for accountability in the matter.

- Ends