Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Bail Application By Ex-TDB Official

The Kerala High Court on Friday (December 12) reserved its verdict in the regular bail pleas preferred by former Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) official Murari Babu in the Sabarimala gold theft case.

Justice A. Badharudeen heard arguments advanced by Advocate S. Rajeev representing Murari Babu and those of the prosecution.

During the course of the hearing today, the Court orally asked for the minutes of the Board meeting that decided that idols were to be handed over to the prime accused Unnikrishnan Potti. It opined that the minutes were necessary to see who are the actual culprits who decided for the handing over.

"Those who are the participants decided. Prima facie, they must all be aware of the fact that these items were originally either gold platted or cladded," the Court orally remarked.

Referring to the anticipatory bail pleas of the 4th accused in the case that was decided by the same Bench, the Court orally said that an argument was made that the said accused only issued letter for handing over based on the Board's decision:

"When I heard the anticipatory bail application, an argument made by the counsel for the petitioner is that there was Board decision to hand over the door frame to Unnikrishnan Accordingly, Jayasree issued the order in terms of the board decision but in the second case, in the board decision, the board never decided to hand over to Unnikrishnan but that was a letter issued by Jayasree even without such a reference in the board meeting."

The Court also orally said that the roles of those involved becomes clear by looking at the minutes of the Board and those who signed in it. If no such decision was made, then that would also point to the involvement.

“If Board members didn't decide, or somebody says this is the decision, it may not be. When that comes as signatory in the minutes, the role is very prima facie clear,” the Court orally added.

It was also pointed out to the prosecution that the investigation in the serious case must be done very carefully, roping in all the devaswom board officials involved:

"Please be so cunning regarding the investigation of this very very sensitive case. Investigating officer, you must be so sensitive. I say that you are in the right direction but you must see that all persons involved must be roped in...You should not spare anybody. It is a serious case. I am not making much comments because it is under consideration before the Division Bench. But anyhow, something I noticed…Must see that all devaswom board members are equally liable. Picking and selecting somebody to be arrested and retaining others outside not justifiable. It's a very serious allegation. It's not something simple.”

The Court also asked if continued custody of Babu is necessary in the case since he was arrested on October 23. To this, the prosecution replied that his custody is needed for opening a device using face id.

After hearing the parties, the Court asked that the minutes of the Board decision be produced and then reserved its verdict.

Background

Babu is the former Administrative Officer of the TDB and was suspended from the post of Deputy Devaswom Commissioner when the crimes were registered by the Special Investigation Team.

He is accused in both the crimes registered by the Crime Branch regarding the theft of gold from the dwarapalaka idols and the sideframes/lintels of the Sreekovil in Sabarimala. He was arrested on October 23 in relation to the crimes and has been in judicial custody since then. His bail application before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kollam was dismissed. Now, he has come before the High Court seeking regular bail.

Babu is accused of the offences under Section 120B [Conspiracy], 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 FIR before the Crime Branch.

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.

In his plea, he has stated that he is innocent of the crimes alleged and that he had no dominion over the custody or entrustment over the copper plates covered with gold that are affixed to various parts of shrine. According to him, the Thiruvabharanam Commissioner is the person responsible even according to the Travancore Devaswom Manual.

He further stated that he already underwent custodial interrogation and is prepared to cooperate with the investigation. He has also stated that his house was already searched by the investigating agency and his bank account was verified but nothing has been found against him.

The bail pleas 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 No: Bail Appl. 14394/2025 and Bail Appl. 14395/2025

Case Title: R. Murari Babu v. State of Kerala