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 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...

Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Jeweller Roddam & Former Devaswom Board Officials

K. Salma Jennath

Tags