Pilgrimage Proceeds Under Scrutiny: High Court Denies Bail in Sabarimala Ghee Scandal

In a significant judicial development, the High Court of Kerala has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a part-time Santhi (priest) implicated in the massive financial irregularities surrounding the sale of 'Aadiya Shishttam' ghee at the Sabarimala Sannidhanam. The ruling, delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen, underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a thorough investigation into the alleged misappropriation of funds during the 2025-26 Mandala-Makaravilakku season.

The Case Background: A Systemic Failure

The investigation, spearheaded by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), follows a suo motu initiation by the High Court triggered by a report from the Devaswom Special Commissioner. Inspections uncovered a staggering deficit of thousands of ghee packets, resulting in a substantial financial loss to the Travancore Devaswom Board.

The petitioner, Jithusooraj S.K., identified as Accused No. 31, served as a part-time Santhi and was tasked with counter duty. Prosecutors allege that during his shift, he failed to account for a significant number of ghee packets, resulting in the direct misappropriation of over ₹1 lakh and associated irregularities.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the young employee found it difficult to track sales amidst the overwhelming rush of devotees at the Sannidhanam counters. He contended that there were no specific allegations of malice against his client and that he was willing to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

Conversely, the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB vehemently opposed the application. The prosecution presented an audit led by the Kerala State Audit Team, which highlighted systemic financial discrepancies. They argued that the accused, acting in concert with other staff, had manipulated sales registers to divert funds for personal gain. With evidence of misappropriated funds totaling over ₹1.5 lakh linked to this specific petitioner, the state insisted that his custodial interrogation was imperative to uncover the larger conspiracy.

Legal Analysis and the Need for Custody

The court’s reasoning centered on the gravity of the allegations. Justice Badharudeen observed that the prima facie evidence presented by the prosecution—including stock discrepancies and reconciliation failures—established a clear role for the accused.

The court distinguished this matter as a case where custodial interrogation is mandatory, not optional. The investigation requires not only the recovery of misappropriated funds but also a factual determination of how these systemic failures were exploited by those on duty. The court noted that because the accused was directly responsible for the counters during the period of discrepancy, granting bail at this juncture would fundamentally impede the SIT's ability to track the movement of the misappropriated money.

Key Observations

Highlighting the court’s rigorous stance, the judgment stated:

• "The prosecution records reveal the role of the petitioner in this misappropriation, prima facie."
• "In such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation, recovery of the money misappropriated, and how it was utilised, are absolutely necessary to accomplish eventful prosecution."
• "The individual liability of the petitioner can be determined only upon a detailed assessment."

Conclusion: A Clear Directive

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the petitioner failed to overcome the threshold for anticipatory relief given the nature of the evidence. Justice Badharudeen directed the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer immediately. Failure to comply will invite the standard legal repercussions for non-compliance, ensuring that the investigation remains unhindered as it probes the deeper lapses within the Devaswom Board’s management of sacred offerings.

This order serves as a stern reminder that official duties, particularly those involving public and religious funds, carry a high standard of accountability that the judiciary is prepared to enforce.