Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict On Bail Plea Of Ex-Thiruvabharanam Commissioner Of Travancore Devaswom Board

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (December 16) reserved its verdict in the two bail pleas of former Thiruvabharanam Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board K.S. Baiju.

Baiju is arrayed in Sabarimala Gold theft cases relating to the misappropriation of gold from the dwarapalaka idols and sideframes of the Sabarimala temple, that is being investigated by the Special Investigation Team constituted by the Division Bench.

The prosecution allegation was that the accused persons, knowing that the Dwarapalaka idols were gold-cladded, entered into a conspiracy and submitted a false report that these were merely copper plates and intended to be gold-plated. It is alleged that the accused worked together in misappropriating around 4.5 kg of gold from the idols placed in Sabarimala temple.

Justice A. Badharudeen heard detailed arguments put forth by Baiju's counsel who submitted that from the allegations made out, he can at the most be liable for dereliction of duty. However, this argument was not accepted by the Court, which stated that if that be the case, none of the accused would have criminal liability.

Further, it was argued that Baiju was not holding office when the items were brought back and could not have known the difference in weight. But the Court felt that though this might have been the responsibility of his successor in officer, there was a duty to ensure that the items were not incorrectly described as "copper" plates when it had gold in them.

"Second part of the crime has got nothing to do with you, Thiruvabharanam Commissioner. Primary duty is to save all thiruvabharanam without being misappropriated, misused or misentrusted...The Devaswom Manual does not permit anything to be taken out of the Sannidhanam. Everything shall be repaired and every addition, modification, contribution, whatever it be, shall be within the Sannidhanam premises," Justice Badharudeen orally remarked.

Another argument was raised that the office of the Thiruvabharanam Commissioner is in Aranmula and that he could not have known about the misappropriation. Moreover, since there was a possibility of coercion by higher officials, there would not be any other option. The counsel asked that this case may be considered as an exception.

"Illegality was being perpetrated and I was compelled to do illegality so I may be protected. I am not ready to do any illegality so appropriate orders may be issued to the President not compelling me to do illegality. You are filing writ petitions for each and everything which, in fact, not even maintainable. Then how come not file a petition of this nature, perfectly maintainable," was the Court's reply.

The Court further orally opined that this was a serious case and one which ought not have happened:

"It is not only sensational. It is very serious and also, it should not have happened. Suppose, an ordinary thief believes that something can be stolen from a house, normal way of thinking of a person having tendency to thieve away something, normally happens. Here, every human being, even believing in god, have a feeling that property of god should not be taken away. Even an atheist also may not go for thieving the articles of gold because inherently he knows, even though I do not believe in god, I am not inclined to disturb the God in any manner. Ultimately, the action is so dangerous. This is the allegation. That is the seriousness. That seriousness makes it sensitive."

The counsel then argued that there is no point in the continued custody of the accused. To this, the Court said:

"Reformative theory principle. Being watched by thousands of devotees of Sabarimala...Now some items of the deity have been stolen away in a direct manner or misappropriated. Then, they must see that they should not happen, as I said."

The Court then asked the prosecution whether all the accused in the case have been arrested. When it was answered in the negative, the Court said that investigation has to be completed and final report has to be filed since otherwise the accused would have be granted statutory bail. It added:

"Otherwise, the investigation may become a futile exercise. So be cunning in so far as the investigation is concerned."

After hearing the parties, the Court said that it would consider all the bail applications together and reserved its verdict.

The bail pleas are moved by Advocates P. Mohandas (Ernakulam), Sabu Pullan, R. Bhaskara Krishnan, Bharath Mohan, and K. Sudhinkumar.

Case No: Bail Appl. 14361/2025 and Bail Appl. 14369/2025

Case Title: K.S. Baiju v. State of Kerala