The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant setback to two former officials of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) in the high-profile Sabarimala gold theft case. The court on Thursday dismissed their petitions seeking pre-arrest bail, stating that the alleged offences against them are prima facie well-established.
Court's Stern Observation on Bail Pleas
Justice A Badharudeen, while dismissing the pleas, made a crucial observation. The court noted that granting anticipatory bail would undermine the ongoing investigation, which is being conducted under the supervision of a division bench of the High Court itself. The judge stated that such a move would render the probe ineffective.
Details of the Allegations Against Former Secretary
The first accused in the spotlight is S Jayasree, the former Secretary of the TDB. According to the prosecution's First Information Report (FIR), Jayasree, during her tenure, issued orders to hand over the gold-clad copper plates of the dwarapalaka (guardian deity) idols to the first accused, Unnikrishnan Potti. This order allegedly facilitated the theft.
Jayasree defended her actions, contending that she merely acted in accordance with the decisions taken by the TDB. However, the High Court rejected this argument. The court referred to prosecution records showing that she issued the order to hand over the plates to Potti on July 5, 2019, despite no such decision being recorded by the TDB.
The court pointed out that Jayasree, a TDB employee since 1982, was well aware that the dwarapalaka plates were originally gold-clad. If she were innocent, the court reasoned, she should have informed the Board that describing the items as copper-made was incorrect and that no order could be issued on that false basis. Considering her medical history of a kidney transplant in 2013, the HC directed the authorities to provide appropriate medical care if any emergency arises during her arrest or custody.
Role of the Former Administrative Officer
The second accused whose bail plea was rejected is S Sreekumar, a former administrative officer. Sreekumar argued that he assumed charge only in July 2019, shortly after the removal of the gold-plated coverings. He claimed the removal was ordered by his predecessor, Murari Babu, and other senior officials.
His defence was that he merely signed a mahazar (inventory or seizure document) that recorded the removal, a document he stated was prepared two days after he took office. The High Court, however, found this explanation insufficient.
The bench observed that if he had no role in the alleged conspiracy, he should not have signed the mahazar. The court emphasized that an administrative officer, who is the custodian duty-bound to safeguard the devaswom's valuables, cannot blindly sign such a critical document. This act, the court added, is enough to attract offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act against him.
Implications and Next Steps
The dismissal of the anticipatory bail petitions clears the way for the investigating agencies to arrest the two former officials for detailed questioning. The court's firm stance underscores the seriousness with which it views the allegations of temple treasure theft and the potential abuse of official position. The case continues to be monitored closely, reflecting the broader demand for accountability in the management of revered religious institutions.
