The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the alleged misappropriation of gold from artefacts at the Sabarimala temple has approached the Kerala High Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to temple tantri (chief priest) Kandararu Rajeevaru. The SIT argued that the relief granted by a vigilance court has led to a “grave miscarriage of justice” and overlooked crucial evidence gathered during the investigation.
The plea comes after the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kollam, granted bail to Rajeevaru on February 18. While granting the relief, the vigilance court observed that there was not even “an iota of evidence” against the tantri in connection with the alleged disappearance of gold from temple artefacts.
The SIT is investigating allegations of misappropriation involving gold cladding from the Dwarapalaka (guardian deity) idols and the door frames of the Sreekovil, the sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala temple.
Rajeevaru has been named as the 16th accused in the Dwarapalaka case and the 13th accused in the Sreekovil case. The vigilance court had granted him bail in both matters.
Challenging the order before the High Court through Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan, the SIT has sought cancellation of the bail granted in the Dwarapalaka case. The prosecution also indicated that it intends to challenge the bail granted in the Sreekovil case in the coming days.
Apart from seeking cancellation of bail, the SIT has also requested the High Court to expunge certain observations made by the vigilance court regarding the investigation, arguing that such remarks could adversely affect the ongoing probe.
In its petition, the SIT contended that the vigilance court granted bail by “ignoring all the facts, circumstances, role played by the respondent (Rajeevaru) and other issues, evidence on record, necessity of further custody and the strong objections raised by the prosecution”.
The investigating agency further argued that the “unwarranted and unnecessary observations” made by the special court could interfere with the continuing investigation.
“The impugned order granting bail and the observations therein suffer from serious legal infirmities, overlook material evidence collected during investigation and have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this court,” the SIT stated in its plea.
According to the SIT, Rajeevaru held ultimate authority in matters related to rituals and religious sanctity at the temple during the relevant period. The investigation has allegedly revealed that he issued a typed opinion dated June 18, 2019 supporting a proposal to re-plate the gold-cladded artefacts. The proposal had been submitted by Unnikrishnan Potty, the main accused in the case.
The SIT claimed that this opinion formed the basis for the Travancore Devaswom Board’s decision to hand over the artefacts to Potty.
The agency further alleged that Rajeevaru was present at the Sannidhanam on July 19, 2019 when the first mahazar was prepared. He allegedly signed the document which described the gold-cladded artefacts merely as copper plates, enabling their removal from the temple premises.
The SIT stated that this occurred despite the tantri having “definite knowledge that gold cladding work had been conducted in 1998 at the Sannidhanam itself”. According to the investigation, he did not raise any objection or alert authorities about the allegedly false description of the artefacts.
The petition also alleged that Rajeevaru “purposefully abstained” from signing the subsequent mahazar dated July 20, 2019, even though he was present at the Sannidhanam. The SIT argued that this was done to avoid direct traceability while still facilitating the movement of the artefacts outside the temple.
“The materials collected during investigation including witness statements, documentary evidence and records clearly indicate active facilitation and willful connivance rather than mere passive silence,” the SIT said.
It further contended that the alleged misappropriation could not have occurred without the tantri’s influence. “In fact, the 1st accused (Potty) and other accused persons could not have committed the misappropriation, had there been no active support from the part of the respondent (tantri). His clout and influence, being the tantri, enabled the other accused to commit the offences,” the SIT claimed.
However, while granting bail, the vigilance court had held that the SIT’s allegation of criminal conspiracy failed in view of the admitted fact that Rajeevaru had not signed the crucial mahazar dated July 20, 2019.
The court had also observed that the mere signing of the mahazar dated July 19, 2019, by itself, without any additional incriminating circumstances, was insufficient to implicate the tantri at this stage, particularly since the document was prepared pursuant to a formal decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board.
