Back
Sabarimala Ghee Heist: Kerala HC Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail, Eyes Custodial Probe in Rs 36 Lakh Scam
In a swift ruling that underscores the gravity of temple fund embezzlement, the on , dismissed for Jithusooraj S.K., a 28-year-old part-time shanthi (counter staff) accused No. 31 in a Vigilance case over missing proceeds from sacred Adiya Sishttam Ghee sales at Sabarimala. Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding singly, emphasized the petitioner's involvement, mandating surrender for investigation. The case, cited as , stems from a High Court probe into systemic pilferage during the .
Temple Treasures Vanish: The Spark of Suspicion
The saga unfolded with a damning report from the 's Chief Vigilance and Security Officer on , flagging shortages of 13,679 ghee packets (Rs 13.67 lakh) at the Maramath counter and 22,565 packets (Rs 22.56 lakh) at the Temple Special Officer's stock—totaling a staggering Rs 36.24 lakh loss. Acting on this, a in SSCR No. 3/2026 directed the to register FIR No. VC 02/2026 on , naming 33 accused, including three Temple Special Officers and 30 shanthies .
Ghee packets, priced at Rs 100 each and sold as sacred prasad during the pilgrimage rush from , to , revealed deeper rot: only Rs 3.23 crore remitted against expected Rs 3.44 crore from 3.44 lakh packets. An audit confirmed Rs 21.39 lakh shortfall. No prior approval under was needed, per the Bench's order invoking precedents like .
'Overwhelmed by Devotees': Accused's Defense Crumbles
Jithusooraj, a first-time depute from Kappil Temple, argued innocence through counsel . He claimed the frenzied crowds at Padinjarenada (November) and Maramath-II counters () made ticket verification impossible. No "specific allegation" pinned personal gain, he urged, offering full cooperation.
VACB, via and , countered fiercely. Specifics nailed the petitioner: solo misappropriation of Rs 1,08,100 (1,081 tickets) plus Rs 47,600 (476 packets) with five co-accused during their shift, amid unremitted 13,250 packets. Collective duty bred individual suspicion, demanding arrest for recovery and utilization trails.
Fingerprints: Why the Court Said No
Justice Badharudeen dissected the Investigating Officer's report, noting petitioner's shifts aligned perfectly with shortfalls from 89,300 issued packets (only 75,450 remitted). Precedents like justified probe sans prior nod, stressing upright team accountability to the court.
The ruling hinged on necessity:
"arrest,
, recovery of the money misappropriated, and how it was utilised, are absolutely necessary."
Petitioner's "innocent" claim rang hollow against records, ruling out bail to safeguard the graft hunt.
Key Observations
"In view of his active duty at the relevant counters during the period when substantial financial discrepancies were detected, his role in the misappropriation cannot be ruled out at this stage of the investigation."
"The accused persons are collectively responsible for the aforesaid misappropriation; however, the individual liability of the petitioner can be determined only upon a detailed assessment."
"Having analysed the facts and attending circumstances in this case, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent could not be found, ."
"But the prosecution records reveal the role of the petitioner in this misappropriation, , as discussed afore."
Surrender or Consequences: Bail Bid Buried
The application stands dismissed. Jithusooraj must surrender to the Investigating Officer; non-compliance triggers legal action. This sets a firm precedent for temple corruption probes, signaling zero tolerance for prasad pilferage and bolstering VACB's mandate in Devaswom matters. Future shanthies and supervisors beware: collective lapses invite personal reckoning.
