Sabarimala gold theft: Kerala HC to hear plea to cancel thantri's bail, stays trial court remarks against SIT

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday sought the response of senior thantri (temple priest) Kandararu Rajeevaru on a plea by the State to cancel his bail in connection with the Sabarimala gold misappropriation case [State of Kerala v Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev T].

Justice A Badharudeen has also stayed certain adverse observations made in the bail order by the vigilance court against the special investigating team (SIT) probing the case.

"Adjourned. Heard DGP, issue notice to respondent (the accused senior priest) and PP also serve notice through SHO, stay order," the Court stated.

The Sabarimala gold theft case concerns gold that went missing from the gold-plated coverings of the Dwarapalaka idols and the door frames to the Sreekovil (sanctum sanctorum) of the Sabarimala temple.

The gold went missing after sacred artefacts weighing about 42,800 grams were removed from the temple premises for repair works to be conducted under the sponsorship of one, Unnikrishnan Potti.

When the items were weighed after the repair works were completed, it was found that the weight of the items had reduced to 38, 258.100 grams, indicating a substantial loss of gold.

Potti is the prime accused in the case. Thantri Kandararu Rajeevaru is among those accused of having entered a criminal conspiracy with Potti to enable the misappropriation of the gold.

The senior thantri has been accused of playing a key role in the removal of gold from the temple, as he gave a favourable opinion supporting the proposal for repair works, which formed the basis for the Travancore Devaswom Board's decision to hand over the items to Potti.

He faces two connected criminal cases in the matter, which is being investigated by an SIT set up on the High Court's orders.

Last month, the Kollam Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Mohit CS allowed a bail plea moved by Rajeevaru in the case.

The SIT has now challenged this vigilance court order before the High Court. The probe agency has also urged the High Court to expunge remarks made by the trial court judge in the bail order against the SIT. The SIT has contended that these remarks were unwarranted, unnecessary and could potentially obstruct the investigation.

In particular, the SIT has flagged the trial court's comment that "no iota of evidence" has been produced by the investigating agency to prove any direct unholy nexus between the accused thanthri and Potti yet. The trial court had remarked that the SIT has so far only made "bald" statements that there was a close relationship between Rajeevaru and Potti.

The trial court eventually concluded that the investigating agency had not been able to establish "any prima facie materials to link (thantri Rajeevaru) in the alleged conspiracy by any means."

The SIT, in its appeal, has argued that it has several witness statements to support its claim that the thantri and Potti were closely associated.

"There are a good number of witnesses who gave statements proving the illegal contacts and connection between the respondent (Rajeevaru) and the A1 (Potti). The learned Special Court failed to consider the oral and documentary evidences. Therefore, the above mentioned findings arrived by the learned Special Court are unwarranted and untenable," the SIT has contended.

The SIT has alleged that the thantri was present while mahazars were prepared during the removal of the gold items from the temple.

The thantri had signed the said mahazars, which recorded the items as 'copper plates' rather than 'gold-cladded copper plates', thereby facilitating the alleged misappropriation, the SIT added.

The SIT further added that the vigilance court failed to appreciate these material facts and undertook a premature evaluation of the case while granting bail. The SIT has contended that the findings of the vigilance court amounted to conducting a 'mini trial' at the bail stage.

The SIT has therefore urged the Court to set aside the bail order and restore the thantri's custody to the investigating agency, to ensure a fair and effective investigation.

[Live Coverage]