Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Jeweller Roddam & Former Devaswom Board Officials
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 21) denied bail to Jeweller Roddam Govardhan and former Travancore Devaswom Board officials A. Padmakumar and Murari Babu, who are accused of misappropriating gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and door frames of the Sreekovil in Sabarimala.Justice A. Badharudeen pronounced the order today in open court after reserving the verdict. They are accused of...
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 21) denied bail to Jeweller Roddam Govardhan and former Travancore Devaswom Board officials A. Padmakumar and Murari Babu, who are accused of misappropriating gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and door frames of the Sreekovil in Sabarimala.
Justice A. Badharudeen pronounced the order today in open court after reserving the verdict.
They are accused of the offences under Sections 403 [Dishonest misappropriation of property], 406 [Criminal breach of trust], 409 [Criminal breach of trust by public servant], 466 [Forgery of record of Court or of public register] and 467 [Forgery of valuable security] r/w Section 34 [Common intention] of the Indian Penal Code along with the offence under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 in the FIRs before the Crime Branch.
Dismissing the plea of Govardhan, the Court observed that his further interrogation was necessary to unearth what happening to the remaining gold in addition to the 474.960 grams recovered by the SIT.
Rejecting the contention of Govardhan that he had made several contributions to the temple over the years, the Court remarked that a property belonging to the deity cannot be quantified in terms of money and the value of the same can be boosted upto a very high, unimaginable figure. It added:
"Be it so, the antique value of the gold misappropriated after removing the same from Dwarapalaka pillars and door frames so close to the holy Deity of Sabarimala Ayyappan could not be quantified in terms of money. No doubt, for these reasons, these crimes have an independent identity and the same separates these crimes from the ordinary crimes where grant of bail has been recognized as a rule. Thus, these crimes are definitely crimes which would fall under the category of exception. In such a case, pre-mature release of Govardhan would definitely impede the investigation of these crimes. In such view of the matter, the bail plea, at the instance of Govardhan, at this stage could not be considered and therefore, his bail application must fail."
Next, coming to the bail pleas of the former TDB President A. Padmakumar, the Court observed that since the other Devaswom Board officials implicated in the case has only been recently arrested, there was a need to question all of them together. Thus, the Court felt it appropriate to dismiss Padmakumar's bail applications as well.
"the option of the Investigating Officer to question all the Devaswom Board members jointly to get more details of the misappropriation and the manner in which the gold was misappropriated would be spoiled, if Sri.A.Padmakumar will be released at this stage. That apart, Sri.A.Padmakumar, who held the post of President of the Travancore Devaswom Board and a former member of legislative assembly is very influential and if he will be released on bail, he would definitely interfere with the investigation including the recovery of the remaining part of gold alleged to be misappropriated," the Court observed.
"Sri.Murai Babu is one among the prime accused in both crimes, and when serious allegations of this nature are raised, that too, misappropriation from a temple by the persons, who were assigned to protect the same become the looters, grant of bail to such an accused could not be considered, particularly when the investigation is on the mid stage, where recovery of a large portion of the gold ornaments is yet to be effected. Therefore, if he would be released on bail, he would stand in the way of investigation including recovery of the gold and in such view of the matter, for the reasons extracted hereinabove and for this reason, his bail application also must fail," the Court observed, dismissing Murari Babu's bail pleas.
However, the Court also made it clear that Babu would be entitled to statutory bail in case the prosecution fails to file the final report within time:
"It is made clear that if Sri.Murari Babu is entitled to get statutory bail on failure on the part of the prosecution to file final report in any of the cases, he is set at liberty to move the same and the same shall be considered in accordance with law."
Earlier, the Court had criticised the non-arrest of K.P. Sankardas and had orally observed that he has been hospitalised since the very day when he was arrayed as an accused. Subsequently, the SIT had recorded the arrest of Sankardas in the hospital in which he was admitted.
The Court criticised the Investigating Officer's inaction in recording the arrest much earlier. It observed:
"even though the Investigating Officer can easily record the arrest of Sri.K.P.Sankardas at the hospital much earlier, as done on 04.01.2026, without interrupting the medical treatment if any, and continue the same, if necessary, his arrest was delayed indefinitely till 04.01.2026. It is judicially noticeable that the son of Sri.K.P.Sankardas, has been working as DIG, a higher police official in the State."
Noting that it is not clear what disease Sankardas was suffering from requiring his long hospitalisation, the Court felt it appropriate to issue a direction to the Medical Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram to form a competent Medical Board of expert doctors and to file a comprehensive report regarding the health condition of Sankardas.
"Further, the report also must contain what is the present ailment of Sri.K.P.Sankardas and the treatment thereof with specific assertion as to whether his hospitalization further more is required and also whether treatment, if any, can be continued inside the jail. The Medical Superintendent is directed to file the report on or before 27.01.2026 in a sealed cover before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, to be placed before me for further action, if any," the Court directed.
Background
A. Padmakumar was the former President of the Travancore Devaswom Board during the period between 2017-2019. He is arrayed as the 8th accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case, which is being investigated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The prosecution allegation is that he conspired with the other accused in the misappropriation of gold from the doorframes of the Sabarimala temple while holding the afore public post. The specific allegation against Padmakumar is that he, as President, permitted to carry out the repair/re-plating works on the doorframes in contravention of the Maramath procedure and the Devaswom Manuals.
He was arrested in relation to the crime on November 20 and has been in custody since then. The Special Judge had dismissed his bail plea and he had come before the High Court.
In his bail plea, Govardhan has stated that he had no role in the misappropriation and that in June 2019, he had donated 184 grams of gold (valued at approximately 9 lakhs) to gold-plate the frame. An allegation is made in the bail plea that despite Govardhan's full cooperation since the inception of the investigation, the Special Investigation Team coerced him to give gold weighing 474.970 grams.
Govardhan was arrested on December 19 and has been in custody since then. He directly moved the High Court seeking bail in both the cases.
The specific allegation against Babu is that he, while working as Administrative Officer, mischaracterised the gold cladded idols and pillars as copper plates and filed a recommendation to the thantri for gold plating them, which action led to the removal and handing over of these to the prime accused, Unnikrishnan Potti.
He was arrested on October 23 in relation to the crimes and has been in judicial custody since then. His earlier bail applications were dismissed by the High Court and this was his second time approaching the High Court.
The bail applications of Padmakumar are moved by Senior Advocate Vijaya Bhanu and Advocates Sruthy N. Bhat, P.M. Rafiq, M. Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K. Sasi, Sruthy K.K., K. Aravind Menon, Aaron Zacharias Benny, Nanditha S. and Govind G. Nair.
The bail applications of Roddam Govardhanan are moved by Senior Advocate Vijaya Bhanu and Advocates Thomas Anakkallunkal, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Jayaraman S., Dhanya Sunny and Ann Milka George.
The bail application of Murari Babu are moved by Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, Maheswar P., T.P. Aravind, and Akshara S.
Case Nos: Bail Appl. 14662/2025 and Bail Appl. 172/ 2026, Bail Appl. 14761/2025 and Bail Appl. 14762/2025 & Bail Appl. 148/ 2026 and Bail Appl. 149/ 2026
Case Title: Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala, A. Padmakumar v. State of Kerala, B. Murari Babu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 41