Court Denies Bail to Former Devaswom Board Official in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case

Overview of the Judgment

In a significant ruling on December 3, 2025, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge at Kollam, presided over by Dr. Mohit C. S., dismissed a bail application filed by N. Vasu, a 75-year-old former Vigilance Tribunal Judge and high-ranking official of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Vasu, the third accused in Crime No. 3701/2025 registered by the SIT Crime Branch in Thiruvananthapuram, faces charges under Sections 403, 406, 409, 466, 467, and 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case revolves around the alleged conspiracy to misappropriate gold cladding from the door frames of the Sree Ayyappa Temple's sanctum sanctorum at Sabarimala.

The petitioner, who served multiple terms as Devaswom Commissioner (2010-2013 and 2018-2019) and as President of the Travancore Devaswom Board (2019-2021), sought regular bail under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, citing his age, health issues, and lack of direct involvement. However, the court found a strong prima facie case against him, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses and potential risks to the ongoing investigation.

Case Background

The allegations stem from irregularities in the handling of gold-cladded copper plates covering the temple's Sreekovil door frames, weighing approximately 42.1 kilograms. In 2019, during Vasu's tenure as Devaswom Commissioner, a request from the Sabarimala Executive Officer sought board approval to entrust gold plating work to a sponsor. Vasu forwarded this request on March 6, 2019, but allegedly omitted key details about the plates being "previously gold cladded," describing them merely as "copper plates." This led to the board's decision on March 20, 2019, to hand over the items to a Chennai-based agency, "Smart Creations," linked to the first accused, Unnikrishnan Potti, resulting in the misappropriation of 409 grams of gold.

A second incident involved an email from Potti on December 9, 2019—while Vasu was Board President—seeking permission to use "balance gold" for a girl's marriage. Vasu directed opinions from subordinates, but the court viewed this as inadequate diligence, especially given Devaswom Manual rules requiring repairs within temple premises under supervision.

The case emerged from a Kerala High Court observation on a vigilance report, prompting two FIRs (Crimes 3700/2025 and 3701/2025). Vasu has been in judicial custody since November 11, 2025, after cooperating with initial investigations.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Defense

Vasu argued he acted merely as a conduit, endorsing subordinate officers' notes without personal recommendation. He claimed no knowledge of subsequent board decisions post his March 14, 2019, tenure end and highlighted his unblemished career, lack of criminal antecedents, and health concerns—including chronic conditions like diabetes, sinusitis, cardiovascular issues, and a prior COVID-19 hospitalization. He assured cooperation, no flight risk, and no interference with witnesses, asserting false implication based on an "omission" in the forwarding letter. Vasu emphasized the investigation's near completion, with recoveries and witness statements done.

Prosecution's Opposition

The investigating officer countered that Vasu, with his extensive experience, knowingly omitted "gold cladded" details to facilitate conspiracy, leading to illegal transport and theft. They highlighted violations of the Travancore Devaswom Manual (e.g., repairs must occur on-site with detailed mahazars) and Vasu's failure to consult the temple's Chief Priest or probe the "excess gold" email. The prosecution stressed the offenses' gravity—misappropriation of sacred temple gold—affecting public trust and devotees' sentiments. They warned of risks: evidence tampering, witness threats, and flight, given Vasu's influence, urging denial to uphold the rule of law.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The court applied well-settled bail principles from Kerala High Court rulings like Nassar v. Union of India (2025 KHC 410) and Supreme Court decisions such as State of UP v. Amarmani Tripathi ((2005) 8 SCC 21) and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee ((2010) 14 SCC 496). These outline factors including prima facie case, offense gravity, punishment severity, flight risk, character, and witness tampering apprehension.

In Chandrasekharan v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC 1585), the High Court held bail should not be granted lightly in serious offenses shaking public confidence, exempting them from the "bail is rule, jail exception" norm. The "tripod test" from P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 KHC 7201)—absence of flight risk, no evidence tampering, no witness influence—was deemed unmet due to Vasu's position.

The court distinguished official acts, citing Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2006 KHC 1810), noting acts under authority for personal gain lose immunity. Medical grounds were rejected per Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023 KHC 1031) and Anand Kumar K.N. v. State of Kerala (2025 (3) KHC 142), as not mandatory without judicial discretion weighing public interest. In Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2023 KHC 6995), economic offenses require prima facie assessment without meticulous evidence weighing.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

• On prima facie complicity: "The petitioner cannot lightly rely on the file notings especially when it comes to 'gold' or 'Thiruvabharanams' of Lord Ayyappa... The words 'gold cladded' should have triggered his sense of highest degree of duty."
• On manual violations: "This is in gross violation of the provisions... works involving the use or handling of valuables belonging to the Devaswom should always be carried out at a place within the Devaswom premises."
• On public impact: "The allegations... pertain to the misappropriation of Thiruvabharanam gold... a case of 'fence eating the crop' has to be viewed with utmost seriousness... considering the immense public importance and the religious sentiments of millions of devotees."

Final Decision and Implications

The court held Vasu not entitled to bail, answering the point against him: "The investigating agency has made out a strong prima facie case... regarding the offences alleged and in particular the offence of misconduct under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as well as Section 467 of IPC." The application was dismissed, prioritizing investigation integrity over age or health.

This ruling underscores accountability for public officials in religious endowments, potentially deterring similar irregularities. It highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding temple assets amid public outrage, with implications for ongoing probes into Sabarimala temple management and broader corruption in devaswom boards. The decision may influence future bail applications in high-profile economic and corruption cases involving cultural heritage.