New Delhi: A 59-page chargesheet summary accessed by The Wire, submitted before a special court in connection with the alleged fund embezzlement at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, reveals that the Uttar Pradesh (UP) police while claiming to have unearthed a well-planned ‘conspiracy’, doesn’t explain how the senior members of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust remained oblivious to such large-scale embezzlement of not just cash but also offerings, including coins and jewellery. The chargesheet summary, is silent on the role of the controversial former general secretary of the Trust Champat Rai, who it said “had received a WhatsApp video message on June 4, 2026 regarding bundles of cash amounting to Rs 2,25,000 found inside the bathroom attached to the counting chamber.” Why didn’t Rai lodge any complaint about this theft despite having video evidence of the same is a question the chargesheet does not even pose.The only First Information Report (FIR) was registered in this case on June 25, 2026, at Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi police station on behalf of a complaint by a member of the Trust named Krishna Mohan. This was twenty-one days after an incriminating video had been sent on Champat Rai’s WhatsApp number.Almost three months after the solitary FIR was filed at Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi police station, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Uttar Pradesh police submitted a 74,000 page chargesheet before the anti corruption court on September 23, 2026. The court in Ayodhya has also taken cognisance of this chargesheet submitted by the SIT.Speaking to The Wire, a police official in Ayodhya familiar with the SIT investigation, who didn’t want to be named, confirmed to this reporter that “along with annexures, the volume of the chargesheet is 74,000 pages including statements of around 170 witnesses.” The concerned official, however, refused to comment when asked how many pages from the police case diaries formed part of the 74,000-page chargesheet other than the annexures.As part of its concluding remarks on the investigation, the chargesheet summary, while commenting on the role of all eight accused who were among the temple’s counting staff, goes on to state: “All these persons, as part of a well-planned criminal conspiracy, have resorted to criminal breach of trust and embezzlement of the donation money. Since the accused were entrusted with the task of counting and sorting of the donation money, they were having lawful possession/dominion of the said amount, which was fraudulently misused by the accused who indulged in taking away that money and transferred it somewhere else for personal gains.”The chargesheet summary states that such conclusions by the UP police were based on “independent examination of CCTV footage, witness testimonies, financial records of banks, records related to movable/immovable assets, recovery of material [after arrest] and electronic evidence among other documents.” District court in Ayodhya where hearings related to donation theft are taking place currently. Photo: Akanksha Kumar.“An examination of the report prepared by the forensic auditor has also confirmed the contextual analysis and conclusions arrived at independently during the investigation on the basis of evidence collected so far”, the chargesheet summary further stated. The eight accused persons named in the FIR – Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava and Ramshankar Yadav alias Tinnu – have, thus, been charged under different provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) related to theft and breach of trust along with different sections under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, related to fraudulent misappropriation and criminal misconduct by a public servant.“All proceeds related to the crime, which happens to be the fund embezzlement in this case, have been looked into during investigation. Every single penny has been accounted for and the evidence has been presented before the court”, said the police official familiar with SIT investigation, when asked about whether land deals also form a part of this probe. This was raised in June this year by Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh in connection with properties purchased by the Trust at exorbitantly high prices. Champat Rai was the representative on behalf of the Trust in most of those highly priced land deals.The Wire has gone through the 59-page document only to find that the work expected to be done by the Trust after the donation money was entrusted to the counting staff, i.e., processing notes into bundles, which were then passed on to the State Bank of India for safekeeping, has not been specified in the chargesheet summary. This conveniently glosses over the key role and responsibility of oversight by senior staff members of the Trust as well as employees of the bank who were on daily roster duty. This reporter spoke with different stakeholders in this case including defence lawyer representing all eight accused, former karsevaks (volunteers associated with the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and Babri Masjid demolition) who emerged as whistleblowers in this case as well as members of the Ayodhya Bar Association who have been demanding that names of Champat Rai and other senior Trust functionaries be added to the FIR. Here’s what we found:Delay in registration of FIR: Testimony by a counting staff member which appears in the chargesheet summary confirming that the trust workers as well as bank staffers were aware of the ongoing theft since June 3, 2026, yet the FIR in this case was registered on June 25, 2026.No timestamps mentioned with respect to CCTV footage: While a total of 304 instances of theft have been mentioned in the chargesheet summary, there’s no specific timeline mentioned when exactly or for how long these thefts had been taking place inside the temple.Link between assets purchased or money transferred with the embezzled amount: Multiple monetary transactions from the bank accounts of accused have been listed in the chargesheet summary though it’s not clear how a particular instance of theft was directly linked to the purchase of assets after they had joined as counting staff members at the Trust.Police theory begins with searches and recovery of stolen cashThe police theory in the chargesheet begins with searches conducted on June 25, 2026, inside room number sixteen located on the ground floor of the temple, based on a complaint by Krishna Mohan. From here onwards, the chargesheet takes a turn resembling a movie plot, as it goes on to state:“In their statements, the accused while confessing to the crime, said that after they were caught on the basis of CCTV footage, the money stolen along with other jewellery items were handed over in the presence of Champat Rai, Govind ji and other Trust workers. After a deed of custody [a legal document comprising list of stolen items] was prepared, all these [stolen items] were sent back to be kept in the locker room of the Trust located on the ground floor of the PFC (Pilgrim Facility Centre) building.”So if one were to believe this sequence of events, what the UP police are essentially trying to do is convince us is that twelve days after Chief Minister Adityanath made an announcement on June 13 regarding the formation of an SIT which would look into financial irregularities, and despite the fact that at least three complaints had already been submitted at the Ram Janmabhoomi police station between June 16-18, it was only after all eight accused were first named in SIT’s preliminary report submitted to the state government on June 23 that arrests were made in Ayodhya on June 25. Until then, none of the eight persons named in the FIR had tried to leave or gone missing. Evening aarti on the banks of Saryu river in Ayodhya. Photo: Akanksha Kumar.Going by the chargesheet summary, it appears that all the accused waited patiently to be identified on CCTV in the weeks leading up to June 25 and then, almost bang on cue, handed over stolen items in the presence of their seniors and confessed to their crime.Before sharing elaborate details of money and other items recovered from individuals, the chargesheet summary goes on to say:“Accused Subhash Srivastava, while admitting to crime, told us that whatever money he got [from the stolen sum] had all been spent. As far as other accused are concerned, in the presence of complainant Krishna Mohan and other Trust workers as witnesses – money, jewellery and coins stolen from the counting room were taken into custody by the police.” In the case of Subhash Srivastava, there are several inconsistencies. As reported by The Wire, his pension account at the Canara Bank which had been frozen, was released recently following an order on September 8, 2026, by a bench of the Special Judge of the Anti Corruption Court in Ayodhya. Earlier, defence lawyer Kulshekhar Singh had asked the Investigating Officer (IO) in this case and Circle Officer (CO) Ayodhya, Ashutosh Tiwari, to provide evidence which could establish links with monetary transactions in Srivastava’s account and stolen funds related to the Ram Mandir donations. Details related to the recovery of cash, based on निशानदेही (recovery of stolen items based on intimation by the accused), in the chargesheet:Name of the accusedAmount related to Ram Mandir chadhawa chori recovered after arrestsAnukalp MishraRs 16,82,040Karunesh PandeyRs 18,07,063Manish Kumar YadavRs 2,00,000Lavkush MishraRs 14,25,000Ramashankar MishraRs 7,32,170 [alongwith a silver coin and toering weighing 24.72 gms]Avinash ShuklaRs 20,39,220 [alongwith 1121 USD, 159.54 gms of silver, a gold chain weighing 8.14 gms and a gold ring weighing 3.44 gms]Ramshankar Yadav alias TinnuRs 1,00,000Total amount (funds embezzled): Rs 79,85,493 Silence on role of Champat Rai and Anil Mishra, only questioned as witnessesBoth Champat Rai and Anil Mishra, who are veterans associated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) respectively, were among former seniormost functionaries of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. They resigned only in June 2026, following increasing outrage over allegations of donation theft at the temple. Their names do appear in the list of 133 witnesses who have been questioned by the UP police. While Anil Mishra has been listed as witness no. 17, names of both Champat Rai as well as former special invitee Gopal Rao find a mention at serial nos. 18 and 19 respectively in the chargesheet. “Statements of all those connected with different activities of the Trust have been recorded”, the police official familiar with the SIT probe further told The Wire when asked about whether former general secretary of the Trust, Champat Rai and former trustee Anil Mishra were among witnesses. It’s with respect to Champat Rai when the police’s theory gets interesting. The chargesheet, while elaborating upon the brief facts related to the case, states:“In his statement, Champat Rai, [former] general secretary of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust said that on June 4,2026, while he was on a train, returning from Delhi to Ayodhya, when at around quarter to ten at night, a video message was received from Anand Kumar Chaudhary on WhatsApp in which bundles of cash could be seen inside a bathroom, with the text message specifying that today all this cash amounting to Rs 2,25,000 had been recovered from the bathroom attached to the counting room. Some persons have been stealing money since the last few days, they are 67 in number [individuals involved in theft]”.Anand Kumar Chaudhary is a member of the counting staff.What did Champat Rai do with this information pertaining to the theft inside Ram Mandir, about which he had not just the information but video evidence as well? Did he inform the police? No.Instead Rai chose to have a formal meeting with a few members of the Trust at his residence in Ayodhya’s Karsevakpuram. The chargesheet on the course of action taken by Champat Rai says:“Next day, on June 5, 2026, once I had reached Ayodhya at around 12 noon, Anil Mishra along with Gopal ji and Narendra ji came to my residence and showed some videos on a laptop in which some counting staff members could be seen as stealing the money while on duty.”At this juncture, another employee from among the counting staff members, whose name is Madan Gopal Nigam, makes an appearance in the chargesheet.As per the chargesheet, Nigam was the Trust employee who had actually laid out the trap for his colleagues involved in donation theft. So, essentially a junior level employee took it upon himself to expose others who were reportedly stealing large quantities of cash and other valuables, which led Nigam to set the ball rolling and do a sort of ‘sting operation’ on fellow employees between June 3-4, 2026. Here’s how the chargesheet justifies this chain of events:“In his statement, Madan Gopal Nigam, a counting staff member said that on June 3, 2026, I was on cash counting duty during the second shift when I had suspicion about my other colleagues – Karunesh Pandey, Lavkush Mishra, Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra – who were also on roster that day. Next, I saw that these individuals would first put a cash bundle under the table on the sly and then hide it around their waist. I informed other counting staff members about this. “Next day, on June 4, 2026, we had our eyes fixed on them [four accused named earlier] and when Avinash Shukla stole a bundle of cash again, it was noticed by Sant Prasad Verma (another staffer) who then informed me about this when we had gathered behind the bathroom. We then decided to inform Trust employee Vinay Srivastava and SBI employee Satya Prakash who went ahead and gave a go-ahead for increased security outside the entry gate of the counting room. When Avinash Shukla and others came to know about increased security they hid the embezzled amount inside the bathroom. Upon searching a total of Rs 2,25,000 cash was recovered from the bathroom.”There are many unanswered questions despite such elaborate description of action taken by Trust employees to which the 59-page chargesheet summary doesn’t offer any answer, unfortunately.Why wasn’t the senior-most functionary of the Trust, Champat Rai, informed on June 3 itself when counting staff member Madan Gopal Nigam suspected some of his colleagues?When a Trust employee along with an SBI representative were informed about the alleged theft on June 4, why didn’t they escalate the issue to the police that day itself?If the embezzled cash amount of Rs 2,25,000 were recovered from inside the bathroom on June 4, why wasn’t the video of recovery of stolen cash shared with the police by Champat Rai on June 5, who instead convened a meeting with other employees of the Trust that day?Cut to a more exhaustive list of recoveries mentioned next by the police which were carried out upon identification by the accused, which reportedly included cash stolen on the day of arrest, along with details of the vehicle/s purchased allegedly from the embezzled amount.Recovery based on “निशानदेही (intimation by the accused)” on the day of arrest, June 25, 2026:Name of accusedRecovery of cash / vehicle purchased reportedly from embezzled moneyAvinash ShuklaBrezza car no. UP*****054Lavkush MishraRs 34,500 and a locket made of gold recovered from his house in Thakuran Fagauli village Anukalp MishraRs 15,000 along with a gold chain and a Dzire car no. UP*****222Karunesh PandeyRs 10,500Ramashankar MishraRs 13,000Manish Kumar YadavRs 17,000Ramshankar Yadav alias TinnuErtiga car no UP*****546 and Bullet motorcycle no. UP*****549‘Big thieves will now be regarded as government witnesses’Not everyone seems to be impressed with the voluminous 74,000-page chargesheet though. Voices of dissent have also been growing in Ayodhya amidst clamour for addition of names in the list of accused which continues to stand at eight, the same tally as had been mentioned in the June FIR.As reported by The Wire earlier, Santosh Dubey, a former kar sevak was among the first complainant who had approached the Ram Janmabhoomi police station in Ayodhya on June 16, 2026, demanding that “an FIR be registered against Champat Rai, Anil Mishra, Gopal Rao and Ramshankar Yadav alias Tinnu for siphoning off temple funds amounting to more than Rs 200 crore.”An old Outlook cover showing Santosh Dubey. Photo: Akanksha Kumar.Speaking to The Wire on phone from Ayodhya, while responding to the question whether he thought justice has finally been done in this case, Dubey said, “It was all just a game to save certain persons. Everyone was involved in the loot. Those sitting at the top in this government have managed everything in the Ram Janmabhoomi loot case.”“I am not at all satisfied with this [investigation] procedure, thieves are roaming outside freely be it Champat Rai, Gopal Rao or Anil Mishra. So the chargesheet has been filed simply against servants, eight of whom are among the accused. Big thieves would now be regarded as government witnesses. Why has an FIR not been registered based on my complaint?”, asked Dubey. While the chargesheet summary doesn’t say much about the supervisory role of Champat Rai, Gopal Rao or Anil Mishra for that matter, there seems to be a concerted effort in pinning the blame for misappropriation on the counting staff members who were caught on CCTV camera multiple times as trying to steal the money either on their own or aiding others in the theft. Even while listing the number of instances of such theft as seen in the CCTV footage, the chargesheet summary does not mention the exact timestamps. This could have helped establish a timeline of when these repeated acts of theft had been taking place inside the temple. It could also have helped answer a larger question: how long had these acts of embezzlement gone unchecked, and by whom?Name of accusedInstances of theft as per the CCTV footageAvinash Shukla85 times [Seen as keeping the stolen money with himself]4 times [Seen as helping other accused in stealing]Karunesh Pandey2 times [Seen as keeping the stolen money with himself]68 times [Seen as helping other accused in stealing]Manish Kumar Yadav16 times [Seen as keeping the stolen money with himself]19 times [Seen as helping other accused in stealing]Ramashankar Mishra1 time [Seen as keeping the stolen money with himself]Lavkush Mishra1 time [Seen as keeping the stolen money with himself]52 times [Seen as helping other accused in stealing]Anukalp Mishra56 times [Seen as helping other accused in stealing]Total no. of instances of theft: 304 While some news reports had earlier suggested a total of 105 instances of alleged theft based on an analysis of CCTV footage, the chargesheet summary lists a total of 304 such occasions when the accused were seen as either stashing away cash for themselves or aiding others in doing so. The SIT’s findings, though, have left many among the community of priests in Ayodhya restless, and wanting more accountability from the higher-ups. Speaking to The Wire, Karpatri Maharaj, who had participated in the forceful demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and had earlier questioned the system of issuing temple passes allegedly through middlemen, said: “Since it was an SIT constituted on behalf of the state government, all it has done is save individuals like Champat Rai, Anil Mishra and Gopal Rao. Since the assembly elections are due in 2027, that’s why these persons have merely been included in the list of eyewitnesses which means nothing. When theft took place while these persons were at the helm and SIT is still not doing anything about it, what can be done about this?” Despite being a vocal critic of former Trust members, Karpatri Maharaj wasn’t summoned by the SIT to share information or give a statement based on information he had on the alleged embezzlement. Karpatri Maharaj has been critical of Champat Rai and other Trust functionaries. Photo: Akanksha Kumar.“By saving all these three [referring to Champat Rai, Anil Mishra and Gopal Rao], the SIT has tried to strengthen the BJP. But the 2027 assembly elections will send out a response as to what is right and wrong since in God’s house there might be a delay but not complete rejection [of the truth]”, said Karpatri Maharaj when asked about the political implications of SIT’s clean chit to the top-rung leadership of Ram Mandir Trust. Does the SIT probe also need probing? Some other whistleblowers in UP like former retired IPS officer Amitabh Thakur who is also the founder of a political outfit named Azad Adhikar Sena, have been relentlessly asking for a thorough investigation despite SIT’s chargesheet surfacing.Between September 25-26, Thakur has sent two letters to UP Director General of Police (DGP), Rajeev Krishna, requesting that based on “submissions at page no. 47 in the chargesheet with respect to Champat Rai having prior information about theft on June 4 and news reports related to instances of theft caught on CCTV footage, a thorough investigation be conducted again by the police under Section 193(9) of BNSS.”Under the provisions of Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), after submission of a report to the Magistrate, a police officer has the powers to conduct further investigation and submit supplementary report within a period of 90 days. Money trail based on bank records and assets purchasedIn its concluding remarks, the SIT has emphasised that call detail records, including text messages by some accused like Anukalp Mishra have turned out to be substantive evidence. The chargesheet summary while talking about Anukalp Mishra’s role in the alleged theft, says:“Data recovered from the mobile of accused Anukalp revealed that he was sending text messages to other accused – Avinash Shukla and Lavkush Mishra – regarding stealing of donation money from inside the counting room. Conversations in these text messages revolve around cash bundles, how to hide them and keep them at a certain place, something that has been verified by technical experts as well.” During its ground reporting from Ayodhya in June, when The Wire had spoken with the family of Anukalp Mishra at his native Basawan village, his grandfather Rajendra Mishra had dismissed all such allegations claiming that he had in fact borne the cost of recent Bhagwat Katha programme in which Anukalp was rumoured to have spent Rs 7 lakh. Anukalp’s neighbours had raised apprehension behind the sudden spending spree by a person who had got a job at the Ram Mandir Trust recently.Anukalp Mishra’s house in Kaushalpuri purchased allegedly from embezzled amount. Photo: Akanksha Kumar.By juxtaposing the monthly income of the accused with money spent on an asset purchase after joining the Trust as counting staff member, SIT appears to have presented a watertight case before the court for now. What the chargesheet summary still doesn’t answer is a simple question – if a couple of underlings were indeed purchasing houses and cars and transferring cash amounting to lakhs in their accounts, what were the other authorities doing to curb this theft being carried out consistently over a period of time?Name of accusedDetails of appointment and earnings from salaryAsset purchased and money transfer related to embezzled funds from Ram Mandir TrustAnukalp MishraAppointed as counting staff member in 2024.Total salary received in bank account: Rs 3.13 lakhFlat purchased in Ayodhya’s Kaushalpuri worth Rs 55 lakh.Spent Rs 3 lakh in purchase of Dzire car.Spent Rs 7.33 lakh in organizing a ‘Bhagwat Katha’ programme.Lavkush MishraProperty purchased worth Rs 22,52,000 under the name of wife (Supriya Mishra). Spent Rs 20,91,000 in construction of a house on the property purchased. (Total amount related to embezzled funds: Rs 43,43,000)Ramashankar MishraAppointed as counting staff member in 2024.Property purchased worth Rs 12,00,000.Deposited Rs 10,80,550 into the account of his father.Deposited Rs 9,43,750 into the account of his brother.Ramshankar Yadav alias TinnuAppointed as worker of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust in March 2020Property purchased worth Rs 9,50,000 under the name of son (Ravi Yadav).Deposited Rs 8,48,000 in different bank accounts.Avinash ShuklaAppointed as counting staff member in 2025.Total salary received in bank account: Rs 1,82,172Deposited Rs 6.71 lakh in the bank accounts of family members.Spent Rs 3 lakh in purchase of Brezza car.Transferred Rs 6,00,000 into account of his brother for the purpose of marriage.Transferred Rs 4,97,138 into the account of another brother.Karunesh PandeyAppointed as counting staff member in 2024.Total salary received in bank account: Rs 1,74,000Deposited Rs 18.55 lakh into the account of his wife.Deposited Rs 1,43,100 into the account of his brother.Manish YadavAppointed as counting staff member in April 2026.Received Rs 21,624 as salary.Deposited Rs 2 lakh into the account of his brother.In a telephone conversation with The Wire, defence lawyer Kulshekhar Singh was dismissive of the SIT’s findings. He said, “Any kind of recovery related to misappropriation or theft is labelled as stolen property. The police claim that a total of around 81 lakh was recovered (Rs 79 lakh cash from the accused along with Rs 2,25,000 from the bathroom earlier) and therefore, among 133 witnesses, even family members of some of the accused have also been included. With respect to some of the jewellery items there do exist proper receipts. So, this is a one-sided investigation.”Singh is not alone among the legal fraternity in Ayodhya who is skeptical about the police probe.A day before the chargesheet was submitted by the SIT, on September 22, 2026, the district court in Ayodhya dismissed an appeal by the Faizabad Bar Association asking for a probe into the exact role of Trust functionaries in the embezzlement. As reported by The Wire earlier, on July 2, 2026, a fourth complaint had been submitted at Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi police station on behalf of the Faizabad Bar Association, alleging that “Rs 10 lakh had been stolen by Champat Rai while another Rs 58 lakh had been stolen by Anil Mishra and Gopal [Rao] which necessitated adding their names to the FIR as well.”The Bar Association had moved an application at Ayodhya’s anti corruption court seeking additions to the list of accused, but their request was rejected on the grounds that they didn’t have any locus in this case.Speaking to The Wire, Shailendra Jaiswal, general secretary of the Faizabad Bar Association, said, “We are planning to go to the High Court now. We held protests several times to raise the issue but once the Supreme Court ordered a separate SIT, we also decided to wait and watch.”Apart from local lawyers, some politicians from Ayodhya also seem to be disillusioned with the investigation done so far. Ayodhya-based Congress leader Sharad Shukla who had filed a complaint in June. Photo: Akanksha Kumar.Sharad Shukla, Ayodhya-based Congress leader, had reached out to the SIT on June 28, 2026 requesting that his statement be recorded. That didn’t quite happen. “After I had sent a mail requesting that I be allowed to put forth my findings before the SIT in person, I simply got a call from someone in the SIT to share evidence via an email which I refused, fearing that attachment might be misused or get corrupted through some means”, said Sharad Shukla, while talking to The Wire. “Not all names of concerned bank staffers who were named by me at our press conference and were under scrutiny have been included in the list of witnesses. If Champat Rai knew about the theft and extortion that was going on and yet the SIT is claiming all is well, this simply looks like an effort to whitewash all other illegal acts”, Shukla further added, raising concerns about the SIT probe.