ED summons to Shahjahan kin
ED had already quizzed Shahjahan’s son-in-law Sabir Ali Mollah on the alleged assets, illegally built.
Expressing satisfaction with the attempts and progress made by CBI in the matter, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted the agency permission to freeze bank accounts of self-styled godman Virender Dev Dixit, who has been absconding for several years while facing multiple rape cases.
A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula expressed satisfaction with the efforts made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to locate and apprehend Dixit.
In 2017, an NGO called the Foundation for Social Empowerment filed a petition. The petition alleged that Dixit had illegally confined several minor girls and women at his “spiritual university.” It further claimed that the girls were not permitted to meet their parents.
Advertisement
The court perused the status report submitted by the CBI, which outlined the progress made in their pursuit of Dixit.
Notably, the agency identified certain bank accounts linked to the fugitive.
Also Read: 3 girls rescued from Indore ashram of ‘godman’ Dixit
The court commended the CBI’s ongoing efforts and allowed them to proceed to freeze bank accounts in accordance with the law. It granted the CBI an additional six weeks to continue their actions and listed the matter for next hearing in November.
Earlier, on May 31, the court had directed the CBI to take steps to apprehend Dixit. The authorities informed the court about Dixit and his followers uploading videos on various platforms, including YouTube and social media. They pointed out that these actions were taking place even though he was a fugitive.
The high court had instructed the CBI to locate Dixit and investigate accusations of illegal confinement, with reports indicating that girls and women were being kept in inhumane conditions behind metal doors within a fortress-like ashram surrounded by barbed wire.
In 2022, the court posed a question to the ashram, asking why the Delhi government should not take it over. The court also raised doubts about whether the inmates were residing there voluntarily.
It said that no institution had the right to violate the fundamental rights of its inhabitants.
Advertisement
