Sabarimala Gold Theft Case : Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Former Devaswom Secretary S Jayasree

Supreme Court of India Grants Anticipatory Bail to S. Jayashree in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case

The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to former Devaswom Board Secretary S. Jayashree, the fourth accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case. She is the only accused in the case to have been granted anticipatory bail thus far.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on February 20.

The Court noted that the appellant had joined the investigation in terms of earlier directions issued by the Supreme Court. It was also recorded that specimen signature and handwriting samples, which were pending earlier, had since been obtained by the investigating agency.

Taking note of these developments, the bench held that anticipatory bail was justified.

The Court also observed that the appellant was a woman and therefore entitled to the statutory protection available under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Senior Advocate P.B. Suresh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner deserved anticipatory bail. He contended that there are approximately 2,500 temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board and that Jayashree was never posted at Sabarimala. It was argued that she had merely passed an order in accordance with a Board resolution.

The senior counsel further submitted that, in compliance with the Court's earlier directions, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer and furnished her specimen signature. Justice Dipankar Datta sought clarification from the State in this regard. The State confirmed that the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer and that her specimen signature had been collected.

Taking note of the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation, the Court granted anticipatory bail.

The Court directed that the appellant shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the police or the court.

Since the investigation is still underway, the Court further directed the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer and appear at the police station whenever required.

The bench clarified that the observations made in the order and the grant of anticipatory bail shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

Senior Advocate P.B. Suresh Kumar, along with A. Karthik (AoR), Adarsh R., and Pranav Menon, appeared for the petitioner. C.K. Sasi, Standing Counsel, represented the State of Kerala.

Click here to read the order