DEHRADUN: A district court in Uttarakhand's Chamoli on Saturday rejected the bail plea of Pramod Nautiyal, the principal accused in the alleged theft and misappropriation of offerings at the Badrinath shrine, allowing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to continue its probe while he remains in judicial custody.
District and Sessions Judge rejected Nautiyal's bail application, following which he will continue to be lodged at Pursari District Jail in Chamoli.
Confirming the development, Chamoli Superintendent of Police Surjit Singh Panwar said, "The court has rejected the accused's bail application. He will continue to remain in judicial custody."
Panwar added that the SIT was examining multiple aspects of the case and that the investigation was progressing.
Nautiyal, who served as private secretary to the then president of the Shri Badrinath-Kedarnath Temple Committee, was the first person arrested after the SIT was constituted to investigate the alleged embezzlement of offerings at the shrine.
According to investigators, the arrest was based on CCTV footage, documents and other evidence collected during the preliminary inquiry. The SIT has alleged that footage from some cameras shows Nautiyal pocketing cash from the temple's offerings.
A case was registered on July 8, following which Nautiyal was questioned, arrested and remanded to 14 days' judicial custody.
As the investigation progressed, the SIT also questioned former temple officer Rajendra Chauhan before arresting him for his alleged role in the case. He too was produced before a court and remanded to judicial custody. Both accused are currently lodged in Pursari District Jail.
Investigators are scrutinising stock registers, donation records, CCTV footage and seized documents while questioning temple committee employees to identify any additional persons allegedly involved in the irregularities.
Officials said the SIT is working to establish the complete sequence of events and determine how the alleged diversion of offerings was carried out. They added that further legal action would be initiated if evidence establishes the involvement of others.
