'Allegation That Investigation Is Lagging': Kerala High Court Orally Remarks While Considering Bail Pleas In Sabarimala Gold Theft Case

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (December 30) orally observed that there is an allegation that the investigation in the Sabarimala gold theft case is dragging. Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering the bail pleas of former Travancore Devaswom Board president A. Padmakumar and that of jeweller Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan.When the matter came up before the vacation bench, the Court felt that the bail pleas can be more effectively and conveniently disposed of by the regular bench, which has been considering the bail pleas of the other accused persons, and posted the cases after vacation on January 6.The Court further orally remarked that there is an allegation that the investigation is not moving forward:"Moreover, now, there is an allegation that the investigation is lagging."It was further orally observed that since some of the perpetrators could not be roped in yet, bail cannot be granted while the investigation is still ongoing. BackgroundA. 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.It is further alleged that he used the word 'copper-plates' after scratching off the word 'brass' instead of 'gold-cladded copper plates' in the notes of the TDB meeting that gave permission for the afore repair work. It is also alleged that Padmakumar, being a public servant, failed to conduct an inspection or examination of the artefacts that were returned to the temple after the alleged re-plating work carried out by prime accused Unnikrishnan Potti, causing unlawful loss to the temple.He is 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.He was arrested in relation to the crime on November 20 and has been in custody since then. He had moved the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kollam for bail but the same was dismissed on December 12. Following this, he had come before the High Court.In his bail plea, Padmakumar has stated that he is innocent and he is arrayed in the crime solely because he was formerly President of the TDB. It is further submitted that the prosecution case itself was that the tantri of the temple himself requested the Executive Officer to conduct the repair and gold-cladding of the door. It was following this that a letter was issued by the Executive Officer to the Devaswom Commission to remove the copper plates and hand it over to the Potti. This request was considered and approved by the Board including Padmakumar and two other members, it is stated.In his plea, Padmakumar has pointed out that as per Section 13 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, decisions cannot be taken by the President alone."A perusal of the said section would showcase that the President is only to preside over the meetings and that no business will be transacted unless at least two members are present and decisions are taken by the majority. The board had unanimously decided to permit the 1st accused to conduct the repair work of the door frames and in such circumstances, attributing the entire liability solely on the applicant and excluding the other board members from the criminal liability casts a veil of suspicion on the investigating authority," states the plea.It is further stated that there is no evidence to allege that the doorframes were gold-cladded except for one alleged letter issued by a staff of the United Breweries Group which mentions of gold plating at Sabarimala.In crossing out the word 'brass' and writing 'copper', he was only making it "in consonance with all the previous letters/ recommendations", it is stated.The plea further highlights that there is no specific allegation against him except vague averments and assertions: "In fact, the remand report of the applicant, it is mentioned that the reason for arrest of the petitioner is because there was no time for the SIT to conduct detailed questioning of the petitioner in the above case. Curtailing the liberty of an individual just because the investigating agency does not...

'Allegation That Investigation Is Lagging': Kerala High Court Orally Remarks While Considering Bail Pleas In Sabarimala Gold Theft Case

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

'Allegation That Investigation Is Lagging': Kerala High Court Orally Remarks While Considering Bail Pleas In Sabarimala Gold Theft Case

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers