The High Court of Kerala has dismissed all bail applications filed by accused public servants in a high-profile case involving the alleged misappropriation of gold from the Sabarimala Sannidhanam. The Court held that the gravity of the offence, the sacred nature of the property involved, and the ongoing investigation necessitated continued custody of the accused, including senior Devaswom Board officials and a prominent donor. The judgment underscores that bail cannot be granted as a matter of routine when the alleged crime involves systemic corruption, breach of fiduciary duty, and the desecration of religious property.
The Verdict
The petitioners, including senior officials of the Travancore Devaswom Board and a donor accused of receiving misappropriated gold, were denied regular bail. The High Court of Kerala held that the nature of the offences under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, coupled with the sacred context of the misappropriated temple property, constitutes an exception to the general rule favoring bail. The Court emphasized that the investigation into the loss of over 4,147 grams of gold remains incomplete, and release of the accused would impede recovery efforts and risk witness tampering. All bail applications were dismissed with directions to the investigating agency to expedite forensic analysis and recover the remaining gold.
Background & Facts
The case arises from the alleged large-scale misappropriation of gold cladding from sacred religious artefacts at the Sabarimala Sannidhanam, including the Dwarapalaka idols and door frames. The gold, originally applied in 1998 by UB Group under a court-sanctioned agreement, was reportedly stripped during a purported repair and gold-plating exercise in 2019. The Travancore Devaswom Board, the statutory custodian of temple property, authorized the removal of these items under the false pretense that they were copper plates, despite clear historical records and eyewitness testimony confirming their gold cladding.
The accused include senior administrative officers of the Devaswom Board, including the then Administrative Officer (Sri B. Murari Babu), the then Thiruvabharanam Commissioner (Sri A. Padmakumar, President of the Board), and a private donor (Sri Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan). The prosecution alleges that these individuals conspired to misrepresent the gold-plated artefacts as copper, enabling their removal to Smart Creations, Chennai, where the gold was stripped and partially recovered. Only 474.96 grams of the estimated 4,147 grams of misappropriated gold has been recovered so far.
The accused were arrested between October and December 2025. Multiple bail applications were filed and dismissed in December 2025. The present applications, filed in January 2026, sought regular bail on grounds of prolonged custody and alleged lack of evidence. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the ongoing investigation, the need to trace the remaining gold, and the influence of the accused.
The Legal Issue
The central legal issue was whether the gravity of the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, involving the misappropriation of sacred temple property by public servants, justifies the denial of bail despite prolonged custody and the general presumption in favor of bail. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the accused’s demonstrated cooperation with investigation and charitable contributions could override the statutory and public interest considerations against release.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners, represented by senior counsel, argued that their prolonged custody - over 80 days for Sri B. Murari Babu - exceeded the statutory limit for custodial interrogation under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They contended that their cooperation with the investigation, including multiple appearances before the SIT, submission of financial records, and production of donation receipts, demonstrated bona fides. Sri Govardhan submitted that he had remitted over ₹14.9 lakh to the Devaswom Trust and incurred additional expenses for insurance and a gold necklace, proving his intent to restore value. Sri A. Padmakumar argued that his alleged alteration of the Board note was a clerical correction, not a criminal act, and that he had no direct role in the physical removal of the artefacts.
For the Respondent
The Additional Director General of Prosecution countered that the accused held positions of trust under the Travancore Devaswom Board Manual and the Prevention of Corruption Act, making them public servants under Section 2(c). The prosecution emphasized that the misrepresentation of gold-cladded items as copper was a deliberate, premeditated act to facilitate theft, constituting criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 409 IPC, and corruption under Section 13(1)(a). The prosecution highlighted that the investigation was still in progress, with forensic reports pending from VSSC and the whereabouts of over 3,600 grams of gold unknown. The release of influential accused, particularly the former Board President, would risk evidence destruction and witness intimidation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming the foundational principle that bail is the rule and custody the exception, but immediately qualified it by recognizing that serious offences involving public trust and sacred property constitute a recognized exception. The Court noted that the accused were not mere bystanders but held positions of fiduciary responsibility under the Travancore Devaswom Board Manual, which mandates the protection of temple valuables. Their alleged falsification of official records - replacing the term "gold cladded" with "copper plates" - was not a clerical error but a deliberate act to enable theft, as evidenced by the contemporaneous letters and mahazars.
"The very basis of the prosecution is centered on the allegation of misappropriation of 4,147 grams of gold and if so, there must be investigation regarding how the misappropriated gold was dealt with and consequential recovery of the same if the recovery is possible."
The Court rejected the argument that charitable donations absolve criminal liability, stating that the antique and spiritual value of the gold, removed from the sanctum sanctorum of a revered deity, cannot be measured in monetary terms. The Court further observed that the accused’s cooperation, while commendable, did not negate the prima facie evidence of conspiracy and breach of trust. The Court emphasized that the accused’s influence - particularly Sri A. Padmakumar’s status as former MLA and Board President - posed a real risk of obstructing justice.
The Court also took judicial notice of the selective and delayed arrests of other implicated Board members, criticizing the investigation for apparent discrimination. However, it held that this did not benefit the petitioners, as their individual culpability was independently established. The Court concluded that the investigation’s success hinged on continued custody to extract information on the remaining gold’s whereabouts, and that premature release would undermine the integrity of the probe.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces that bail may be denied in cases involving public servants accused of misappropriating sacred or state-owned property, even where custody is prolonged and cooperation is demonstrated. The ruling establishes that the nature of the property - its religious, cultural, and symbolic value - can elevate an offence beyond ordinary economic crime, justifying exceptional custody. Practitioners should note that charitable conduct or financial restitution, while relevant to sentencing, does not negate the prima facie elements of criminal conspiracy or breach of trust under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The judgment also signals that courts will scrutinize the timing and selectivity of arrests in high-profile cases. While the Court criticized investigative delays, it held that such lapses by the state do not automatically entitle accused persons to bail. Future applications must address not only custody duration but also the specific risk of evidence tampering, witness influence, and the potential for asset concealment. The directive to the Medical Superintendent to submit a medical report on an accused’s health also sets a precedent for judicial oversight in cases where health claims are used to delay arrest.
The case underscores the importance of forensic documentation in property misappropriation cases. The pending VSSC report on gold composition may become pivotal in proving the original cladding, making early forensic preservation critical in similar investigations.
