Kerala High Court Rebukes SIT Over Delayed Chargesheets in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday delivered a sharp criticism of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the alleged gold theft at the Sabarimala temple, expressing serious concern over the delay in filing chargesheets in the high-profile case. The court emphasized that such procedural lapses could enable the accused to obtain statutory bail under legal provisions, potentially undermining the investigation's integrity.
Court Warns of Default Bail Consequences
During the hearing, the court posed pointed questions to the SIT, asking "Why can't you file charges against the accused within the prescribed time limit?" The bench observed that all accused individuals were approaching 90 days in custody, a critical threshold that triggers eligibility for default bail.
The court warned that delay in filing chargesheets would allow accused persons to be released on default bail – a situation where trial courts, high courts, or even the Supreme Court cannot deny bail. This legal mechanism exists to prevent indefinite detention without formal charges.
Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the matter, expressed concern that such delays could erode public confidence in the investigation process. "The public will have doubts about what is happening in the investigation," the court noted, urging the SIT to ensure that no accused person henceforth derives the benefit of default bail due to procedural delays.
Background: Default Bail Granted to Former TDB Officer
The court's observations came in the context of Murari Babu, former administrative officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and an accused in the case, being granted default bail on January 23 after completing 90 days in custody. This development highlighted the practical consequences of investigation delays in time-sensitive legal proceedings.
Petition Challenges Arrest Procedures
The High Court was considering a petition filed by Pankaj Bhandari, CEO of Smart Creations based in Chennai, who is also an accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case. Bhandari challenged his arrest, contending it violated Supreme Court guidelines and his fundamental rights.
In his petition, Bhandari made several serious allegations:
- His arrest was not conducted in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines
- The notice issued after his arrest failed to disclose proper grounds for arrest
- He was denied legal assistance to discuss the alleged illegal arrest with counsel
- A copy of the remand report was furnished only a day after his remand
- The remand report was provided in Malayalam, a language he does not understand
Legal Arguments and Court's Response
During Tuesday's hearing, the Additional Director General of Prosecution strongly opposed Bhandari's allegations, asserting that the arrest was carried out in full compliance with legal requirements. However, senior counsel representing the petitioner argued that the arrest violated both statutory provisions and Supreme Court guidelines.
After hearing extensive arguments from both sides, the Kerala High Court reserved its orders on the petition. The court's final decision on the arrest challenge is awaited, while its strong remarks about investigation delays have already highlighted significant concerns about the pace and procedures of the Sabarimala gold theft probe.
The case continues to draw national attention as it involves allegations of theft from one of India's most prominent pilgrimage sites, with the investigation now facing judicial scrutiny over both its pace and methods.
