Sabrimala Gold Heist Accused CEO Takes Legal Fight to Kerala High Court
Pankaj Bhandari, the Chief Executive Officer of Smart Creations based in Chennai, has moved the Kerala High Court. He is challenging his recent arrest in connection with the high-profile Sabarimala temple gold heist case. Bhandari stands accused in this sensational theft that has shocked devotees across the country.
Allegations of Constitutional Violations
In his petition, Bhandari makes a serious claim. He alleges that his arrest directly violates his fundamental rights. These rights are guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, he contends the arrest contravenes specific guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India for arresting individuals.
The prosecution presents a different story. Authorities arrested Bhandari on December 19. Their case states that the gold plating work for the temple's dwarapalaka idols, door frames of the sreekovil, and other structures was executed at his firm, Smart Creations. The charge is grave: the gold coating on these plates was allegedly stripped off by him. This act, along with other accused individuals, purportedly caused significant financial loss to the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), the temple's managing body.
Court Seeks Government Response
A bench of Justice A. Badharudeen heard the petition on Tuesday. The court has now sought instructions from the state government regarding Bhandari's legal challenge. The matter has been adjourned and is scheduled for further hearing on January 21.
Detailed Grievances in the Petition
Bhandari's petition outlines several procedural complaints. He asserts his arrest did not follow the Supreme Court's mandated arrest guidelines. He also claims the notice issued to him after arrest failed to disclose the proper grounds for his detention. It merely stated his arrest was "inevitable," which he argues is insufficient.
Denial of Legal Assistance: A key allegation involves access to legal counsel. Bhandari contends he was denied the opportunity to discuss his allegedly illegal arrest and the defective notice with his lawyer before being produced before the special judge in Kollam.
Issues During Remand: The problems continued during his remand hearing, according to the petition. He alleges he was not provided a copy of the remand report at that time. Without legal representation or access to this crucial document, he argues the proceedings became a mere rubber-stamp formality.
Language Barrier: Adding to his grievances, Bhandari states that a copy of the remand report was provided a day after his remand. However, it was written in Malayalam, a language he does not understand. This, he claims, further hindered his ability to mount a proper defense.
The case continues to unfold as the Kerala High Court awaits the state government's stance on these serious allegations concerning arrest procedures and fundamental rights.
