Kerala High Court Denies Ex-TDB Secretary's Direct Bail Plea, Citing Procedural Grounds

KOCHI – In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of procedural hierarchy in the justice system, the Kerala High Court has refused to entertain an anticipatory bail application filed directly by a former high-ranking official of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) implicated in the Sabarimala gold theft case. Justice K. Babu, presiding over the matter, dismissed the plea not on its merits but on the fundamental principle that the petitioner had bypassed the appropriate lower forum—the Sessions Court—without demonstrating the requisite "exceptional circumstances."

The petitioner, S. Jayasree, who served as the TDB Secretary and later as the Thiruvabharanam Commissioner, is the fourth accused in a high-profile case involving the alleged misappropriation of gold from the sacred idols at the Sabarimala temple. The decision provides a critical reminder to legal practitioners about the jurisdictional prerequisites for seeking pre-arrest bail from a High Court.

---

Background of the Allegations

The case revolves around serious allegations of criminal conspiracy and breach of trust. According to the First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Crime Branch, the primary accused, Unnikrishnan Potti, allegedly misappropriated gold from the covering plates of the dwarapalaka (guardian deity) idols and other parts of the Sabarimala sanctum sanctorum ( sreekovil ). The prosecution contends that this was carried out with the active connivance and assistance of several Devaswom officials, including S. Jayasree.

Jayasree, along with nine others, faces charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

* Section 403: Dishonest misappropriation of property

* Section 406: Punishment for criminal breach of trust

* Section 409: Criminal breach of trust by a public servant

* Section 466: Forgery of a public register

* Section 467: Forgery of a valuable security

* Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention

The prosecution's case against Jayasree specifically alleges that she issued orders that were instrumental in entrusting temple valuables to the main accused, purportedly contrary to the official minutes of TDB meetings.

The Petitioner's Defense and Plea for Direct Intervention

In her petition seeking pre-arrest bail, S. Jayasree vehemently denied any wrongdoing. Represented by Advocate R. Rajanie, she argued that her role was purely administrative and that the orders she issued on July 5, 2019, and March 19, 2019, were merely reflections of decisions taken by the TDB. Her counsel asserted that "she has been implicated solely for issuing an order that reflected the Board's decision to handover the idols," and that she committed no act detrimental to the interests of the temple, its deity, or the devotees.

A central plank of her plea to directly approach the High Court was her deteriorating health. Jayasree stated that she is a kidney transplant recipient requiring continuous medical treatment at a hospital in Ernakulam. This, she argued, limited her ability to travel and constituted an "exceptional circumstance" justifying a direct appeal to the High Court for anticipatory bail. Interestingly, the petition also noted that she had never visited Sabarimala in her lifetime, either as a child or after reaching the permissible age, due to her ongoing health issues.

The High Court's Jurisdictional Stance

Justice K. Babu, however, remained unconvinced that the petitioner's health condition met the high threshold of "exceptional circumstances" required to bypass the Sessions Court. The court's decision was heavily influenced by a key Supreme Court observation in the case of Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala . This precedent has been consistently interpreted to mean that while a High Court possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court to hear anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this power should be exercised sparingly. The normal course of action is for the applicant to first seek relief from the Sessions Court.

In his remarks, Justice Babu noted that "there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the petitioner to directly approach the High Court before going before the Sessions Court." The court effectively ruled that while the petitioner's health concerns are valid, they do not automatically create a scenario so extraordinary as to disrupt the established judicial hierarchy.

The court, therefore, dismissed the bail application ( Bail Appl. No. 13418 of 2025 ) on this preliminary ground. Crucially, the dismissal was without prejudice, and the court explicitly granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Sessions Court with her application for anticipatory bail.

Legal Analysis and Implications for Practitioners

This ruling serves as a potent jurisprudential reinforcement of procedural discipline. While Section 438 CrPC grants concurrent powers, the unwritten rule, now fortified by Supreme Court observations and subsequent High Court rulings, is that the Sessions Court is the primary forum.

1. Defining "Exceptional Circumstances": The case highlights the narrow interpretation of "exceptional circumstances." Mere inconvenience, or even significant health issues that do not render an approach to the lower court impossible, may not suffice. The onus is on the petitioner to demonstrate a compelling, extraordinary reason—such as a patent lack of jurisdiction in the lower court or a clear case of mala fide prosecution that requires immediate high-level intervention—to justify bypassing the established channel.

2. The Role of Judicial Comity: The practice of directing applicants to the Sessions Court first is rooted in principles of judicial comity and effective case management. It prevents the High Courts from being inundated with routine bail applications, allowing them to focus on more complex questions of law and appeals. It also ensures that the court with territorial jurisdiction, which is often better placed to appreciate the factual matrix of a case, gets the first opportunity to adjudicate.

3. Strategic Considerations for Counsel: For criminal law practitioners, this decision is a clear signal. Filing an anticipatory bail plea directly in the High Court is a high-risk strategy that is likely to fail unless the circumstances are truly exceptional. The more prudent and effective approach is to build a robust case at the Sessions Court level. An adverse order from the Sessions Court then provides a solid foundation and a clear record for an appeal to the High Court.

The Senior Public Prosecutor, M.K. Pushpalatha, representing the State of Kerala, successfully argued for the adherence to this established procedure. The court's acceptance of this argument reaffirms that procedural propriety is not a mere technicality but a cornerstone of the administration of justice. As S. Jayasree now prepares to move the Sessions Court, the legal community will be watching to see how the merits of her bail application are considered by the appropriate forum.

---