Delhi’s Patiala House Court took cognizance of the charge sheet filed by the police in which self-styled godman Chaitanyanand Saraswati has been accused of sexually harassing 17 girl students of a private management institute. Judicial Magistrate Animesh Kumar had sought clarification from the police on a section, which was clarified by Additional Public Prosecutor Raghav Khurana present in the court. After this the court accepted the charge sheet.

Chaitanyanand, who appeared from Tihar Jail through video conferencing in Patiala House Court, claimed in the court that an ASI had scuffled with him in the jail. He said that he is a senior citizen and he was assaulted. On this complaint, the court said that the case will be heard on November 29.

Delhi Police filed 1077 page charge sheet

In this case registered on the complaint of 17 girl students of Shri Sharda Institute of Indian Management located in Vasant Kunj, Delhi, the police filed a charge sheet of 1077 pages. It includes statements of 43 witnesses.

The police have charged Chaitanyanand Saraswati, Bhavana Kapil, Shweta and Kajal with sexual harassment (BNS 75-2), outraging the modesty of a woman (BNS 79), threatening to give a false statement (BNS 232), threatening to cause grievous harm (BNS 351-3) and destroying evidence (BNS 238-B). There is a provision of maximum punishment of seven years in these sections. Another accused Harish Singh Kapkoti has been made an accused in two sections.

Police had registered FIR on 4th August

This case started in March 2025 when the first student lodged a complaint. Later many girl students came forward. Delhi Police had registered an FIR on 4 August. Chaitanyananda remained absconding for 55 days and was arrested from a hotel in Agra on 28 September.

Chaitanyananda, originally from Odisha, was living in the ashram for the last 12 years. A case has been registered against him in the year 2009 also.

Threats have been made to bomb Delhi’s Saket Court, Patiala House, Tis Hazari and Rohini Court. After receiving the threat, security has been tightened in all four campuses and the campus is being investigated. The police have not found anything suspicious yet.

Apart from the four courts of Delhi, bomb blast threats have also been made in two CRPF schools. These include schools of Dwarka and Prashant Vihar. This threat has been sent through mail.

Threat sent in the name of Jaish-e-Mohammed

If sources are to be believed, in the threatening message sent to the court premises, it has been clearly warned that there could be a big explosion in the court campus. After the blast near the Red Fort, security agencies are not taking any such threat lightly. Therefore, as soon as the information was received, intensive investigation was started in all the campuses.

This email has been sent in the name of Jaish-e-Mohammed, considering that Delhi Police cannot ignore it at all.

Delhi blast accused appears in Patiala court

This threat is also being considered serious because the Patiala House Court where the bomb blast threat has been sent, is there today. Delhi blast The accused is also appearing. In such a situation, the police has become very alert.

People in panic after the blast near Red Fort

On the evening of Monday, November 10, 13 people were killed in a massive explosion in a car near Red Fort, the high security area of ​​Delhi, while about 20 people were injured. This was a terrorist attack, the links of which were linked to suspected white-collar terrorist doctors of Jammu-Kashmir, Faridabad and UP. There is an atmosphere of panic among the people of Delhi since this blast.

Along with Delhi, security has been tightened in every state and investigation is being done from every angle to bust the terrorist module. Meanwhile, receiving bomb threats against big institutions of Delhi like courts and CRPF schools is being considered a big challenge for the security system.

Delhi’s Patiala House Court has given a big blow to lawyer Mahmood Pracha by rejecting his petition in which he had demanded to declare the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict nullified. The court has imposed a fine of Rs 6 lakh on the lawyer, terming the petition as ‘frivolous’, misleading and an abuse of the judicial process.

District Judge Dharmendra Rana said in his order that the petition filed by Mahmood Pracha is not only beyond the facts but it also raises questions on the credibility of the judicial system. The court said that it appears that the petitioner did not read the Ayodhya verdict completely, otherwise such confusion would not have arisen. The court admitted that this case was filed only for the purpose of creating publicity and spreading misunderstanding.

Lawyer misinterpreted Justice Chandrachud’s speech

In the petition, Pracha had claimed that the then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had said in a speech that the Ayodhya verdict was based on the solution given by Lord Shri Ram Lala. On this, the court clarified that Justice Chandrachud had only said that he had prayed to God for guidance and not received any solution from any party. The court said that the lawyer filed the case without understanding the difference between God and juristic personality i.e. a legally recognized deity.

Court expressed displeasure and gave strict warning

Making a strong comment, the court said that when the protectors become the predators, then the situation becomes worrying. The court said that such negligence cannot be expected from a senior lawyer. The court also added that it is necessary to take strict action against such baseless cases so that the time and resources of the judicial system are not wasted.

Reference to Judge Protection Act

Patiala House Court clearly said in its decision that this case is a bar under the ‘Judges Protection Act, 1985’. According to this Act, no civil or criminal action can be taken against any judge for judicial work. Upholding the order of the lower court, the court increased the amount of fine from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 6 lakh and said that it is everyone’s responsibility to maintain the dignity and sanctity of the judiciary.

Baba Swami Chaitanand Saraswati, the director of the ashram located in Vasant Kunj, surrounded in serious allegations of sexual exploitation of girl students in Delhi, has received a major setback from the Patiala House Court. Patiala House Court has sent Chaitanand Saraswati to 5 days police custody. Delhi Police will interrogate the accused Baba Chaitanand Saraswati. Earlier, Delhi Police had demanded Baba’s 5 -day police custody.

Weak class students targeted

According to the police, Chaitanyanand is accused of targeting students studying in Post-Graduate Management Diploma course under the Scholarship Scheme of Economically Weaker Class (EWS). On August 4, after receiving a complaint from the Indian Air Force headquarters, the accused escaped, in which he was accused of molesting the girl students.

Baba used to call the room at night

Investigation revealed that Chaitanyanand used to call the girl students in their room at night and force them to reduce their grades or fail. The police have recorded statements of three wards of the institute, who are accused of helping Chaitanyanand and deleting objectionable messages.

Evidence of sexual abuse

WhatsApp chats recovered from about 50 girl students’ phones have found evidence of sexual abuse for 16 years, including objectionable messages and forced physical contact incidents. Apart from this, allegations of deleting CCTV footage have also been reported and DVR has been sent for forensic investigation.

Allegations were also made earlier

Earlier, in early August, 17 girl students lodged a complaint at Delhi’s Defense Colony Police Station, in which Chaitanyanand was accused of harassment of students receiving EWS category scholarship. According to officials, Chaitanyanand had been exploiting women for the last two decades, and in 2009 and 2016, he escaped in cases of tampering.

This time the matter came to light when 17 girls lodged a complaint in August. At that time Chaitanyanand was in London, but his final location was found in Agra. He filed an anticipatory bail petition in the Delhi High Court, but later withdrew it.

UN’s fake logo imposed on the car

Another shocking revelation in the investigation was that several fake number plates were recovered from Chaitanyanand’s red colored luxury Volvo car, which had fake people of the United Nations (UN). The investigation confirmed that this number plate was not released by the UN and the accused himself made them. The car has been confiscated for investigation.

The woman Gaganpreet, arrested in the BMW accident case of Dhaula Kuan, Delhi, has got relief. Patiala House Court of Delhi on Saturday (September 27) granted bail to accused Gaganpreet Makkar in the death of Navjot Singh, a senior employee of the Ministry of Finance. He has been granted bail on the bond of one lakh.

Navjot Singh, the deputy secretary in the Finance Ministry of the Government of India, was killed in a road accident in Delhi’s Dhaulakuan area on 14 September, while his wife was seriously injured. In this case, the court extended the judicial custody of accused woman Gaganpreet Kaur on 17 September till 27 September.

Navjot Singh was returning home with his wife after visiting Bangla Sahib Gurdwara. On the way, a high speed BMW hit his bike while going towards Raja Garden from Pillar No. 57 of Dhaulakuan. At that time Gaganpreet was driving the car.

Accident while returning to see Bangla Sahib

His son Nawanur Singh had told, “Mother and father left for Bangla Sahib in the morning. On returning home, he got an accident in a BMW car, in which father died. The mother’s condition is critical.”

Footage and statements do not match- lawyer

At the same time, lawyer Pradeep Rana, appearing on behalf of Gaganpreet Kaur, accused in this case, claimed that the CCTV footage presented in the court and the statement recorded in the FIR did not match. The arguments of both sides have been heard and the court has reserved the decision on the bail of the accused.

Talking to the media, advocate Pradeep Rana said, “The CCTV footage presented in the court is completely different from the claims of the FIR. The FIR states that the vehicle was hit from behind, but in the CCTV, it is clear that the car collided with the car first. After that, then there was a flipover, then the bike riders came in contact with the bike. Do not match the FIR. “