Sabarimala Gold Theft: Smart Creations CEO Pankaj Bhandari Moves Kerala High Court Alleging His Arrest As 'Illegal'

Pankaj Bhandari, CEO of Smart Creations, Chennai has moved the Kerala High Court challenging his arrest in the Sabarimala gold theft case as illegal and violative of the Constitution of India.

The prosecution allegation is that Bhandari along with the other accused in the case, including prime accused Unnikrishnan Potty, conspired together to misappropriate gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and the doorframes of the Sreekovil of Sabarimala temple and in furtherance of this, Potty took the gold-cladded items to Smart Creations, which stripped the gold knowing it to belong to the Travancore Devaswom Board.

Justice A. Badharudeen, on Wednesday (January 21), heard detailed arguments advanced by Senior advocate B. Raman Pillai, who appeared for Bhandari and by Additional Director General of Prosecution (ADGP) Gracious Kuriakose for the prosecution.

The Court then deferred further hearing in the case to Tuesday (January 27) and observed:

"Heard both sides in detail. Learned ADGP seeks time to argue on the observation of the Apex Court in para 49 of the judgment in Prabir Purkayastha v. State."

Senior counsel argued that Bhandari had been cooperating in the investigation from the inception and had come to Thiruvananthapuram multiple times in this regard. It was on such an instance that Bhandari was arrested at 4:35 pm December 19 without any reason.

The counsel further told that subsequent to his arrest, he was hurriedly produced before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kollam sometime between 9:30 pm to 10 pm on the same day even though there was sufficient time to produce him before a jurisdictional Magistrate in Thiruvananthapuram.

It was also argued that the grounds of arrest merely states 'inevitable' and does any make any reasons in it. Further, it was argued that Bhandari's arrest was not intimated to any of his relatives on the day of his arrest and it was done only the next day via email to his wife.

It was contended that remand application was supplied prior to the remand order and since Bhandari did not know Malayalam, being from Tamil Nadu, the copy of the remand report in Malayalam would not be sufficient. Further, the senior counsel told the Court that legal consultation was denied to the accused and he was not represented by a lawyer at the time of his remand, which was conducted in Malayalam.

He placed reliance upon many decisions of the Supreme Court, including Prabir Purkayastha v. State, Mihir Shah v. State of Maharashtra, Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana to support his arguments.

ADGP Gracious Kuriakose, on the other hand, argued that the grounds of arrest was communicated to him and his staff member Rajasekharan S. on the same day as his arrest. Later, his wife was intimated by email also.

The Court then asked if the copy of the remand application has been supplied to the accused or his counsel and whether the mandate under Prabir Purkayastha case has been complied with.

The ADGP replied that as per the judgment, the the copy of the remand application is to be given only in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest and that grounds of arrest was admittedly communicated to Bhandari.

At this juncture, the case was adjourned for a detailed hearing regarding the mandate provided under Prabir Purkayastha and granting time to the ADGP to address the other arguments advanced by Bhandari's counsel.

The petition is moved by Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai, Advocates S. Vishnu, V.S. Viswambharan, Naik Chirag Dhananjay, Mathrawala Noopur Vishal, Mahesh Bhanu S., R. Anil, Sujesh Menon V.B., Lilin Lal.

Case No: WP (Crl.) 52/2026

Case Title: Pankaj Bhandari v. State of Kerala and Ors.