Anticipatory bail is not granted where clear prima facie evidence indicates significant involvement in serious financial misconduct affecting public accountability.

ORDER

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026 This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, who is accused No.31 in Crime No.VC 02/2026 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 316 (5), 314, 61(2), 3(5) and 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS ’ hereinafter) as well as under Sections 13 (1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act , 2018 (for short, ‘the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018’ hereinafter), by the accused.

4. In the present case, the FIR was registered pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in SSCR No.03/2026, dated 13.01.2026, acting on a report submitted by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner, which detected blatant acts of criminal misappropriation of the proceeds of ‘Adiya Sishtam Ghee’. Upon finding merit in the report, the Division Bench issued the following directions as recorded in paragraph No.20 of the order. The same reads as follows:

“20. The following directions are accordingly issued:

a) The Chief Vigilance and Security Officer shall forthwith forward the complaint dated 10.01.2026 to the Director, Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Bureau.

b) The Additional 7th respondent shall constitute a team of upright and competent officers and shall initiate steps to register a crime on the strength of the report dated 10.01.2026 submitted by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. The team so constituted shall conduct a meticulous, coordinated, and effective investigation into the matters referred to above and those disclosed in the said report. It is made clear that the team shall not disclose any details of the investigation to the public or the media.

c) The investigating team shall file a report before this Court within a period of one month from today, indicating the progress of the investigation.

d) In view of the law laid down by this Court in Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala , Venugopal V. and Others v. State of Kerala , Yakoob Purayil v. State of Kerala and in view of the nature of allegations, prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not required in the present case.

e) The team so constituted shall be answerable only to this Court, and before filing the final report, prior permission of this Court shall be obtained.”

5. In paragraph Nos.4 to 12 of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, the allegations against the accused have been specifically dealt and the same are as under:

“4. SSCR No.3/2026 was initiated by this Hon’ble Court suo motu following a report submitted by the Devaswom Special Commissioner, which incorporated the findings of Report No.SP/SB/210/26/TDB/VIG dated 10.01.2026 from the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer (CVSO) of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The inspection conducted by the CVSO revealed a deficit of 13,679 packets of 'Aadiya Shishttam Neyyu' (ghee), each valued at ₹100/- at the Maramath counter at Sannidhanam, amounting to ₹13,67,900/-, which had not been remitted to the Devaswom account. Further discrepancies were noted during the Mandala-Makaravilakku season (17.11.2025 to 27.12.2025), wherein a shortage of 22,565 packets, valued at ₹22,56,500/-, was detected at the office of the Temple Special Officer (TSO). Specific allegations were also raised against Sunil Kumar K.R. @ Sunil Kumar Potti (Accused No. 13), an employee of the Devaswom Board, for failing to issue receipts and for temporarily misappropriating an amount of ₹68,200/- for a period of 17 days.

5. It is subm