Back
Supreme Court Unlocks for Sabarimala Gold Theft Accused Amid Probe Cooperation
In a swift intervention on , a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma at the granted to S. Jayasree , former Secretary of the . Jayasree, named as the fourth accused in the high-profile Sabarimala gold theft case, saw the 's denial of her plea overturned. This makes her the only accused so far to secure such relief in the matter rocking one of Kerala's most revered temples.
The Sabarimala Heist: A Temple's Treasured Gold Goes Missing
The case stems from FIR No. 3700/2025 registered on , at the in Kerala. Jayasree faces charges under Sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation), 406 and 409 (criminal breach of trust), 466 and 467 (forgery of valuable security and documents), and 34 (common intention) of the .
Allegations point to a brazen theft of gold from the Sabarimala temple, managed under the , which oversees around 2,500 temples. Though Jayasree was never posted directly at Sabarimala, prosecutors claim her role involved passing an order per a board resolution that allegedly facilitated the offence. The investigation, still ongoing, has gripped public attention due to the temple's cultural significance and the involvement of temple officials.
Defense Fires on All Cylinders: Cooperation Over Custody
Senior Advocate P.B. Suresh Kumar , representing Jayasree, emphasized her full compliance with prior Supreme Court directives. She had joined the investigation, provided pending specimen signatures and handwriting samples—steps confirmed by the State during hearings. Kumar argued her peripheral role, stressing she merely executed a board decision, and highlighted her status as a woman deserving special safeguards.
The State of Kerala, through counsel , could not dispute her cooperation but sought custody to further the probe into the gold smuggling racket.
Court's Calculus: Compliance, Gender Lens, and Guarded Liberty
The bench took a holistic view, noting undisputed facts: Jayasree's investigative participation and sample submission. Crucially, it invoked , which offers protections to women in criminal proceedings—a statutory nod often pivotal in bail matters.
No precedents were directly cited, but the order underscores evolving norms on : cooperation trumps routine custody, especially absent flight risk or tampering threats. The ruling distinguishes this from core accused in economic crimes, focusing on Jayasree's compliance amid an incomplete probe.
Key Observations from the Bench
"It is not in dispute that the appellant has joined investigation in terms of the earlier orders of this Court. Even the specimen signature and handwriting samples, which were pending, have since been obtained. That apart, the appellant is a lady who is entitled to protection contemplated by Section 480, Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."(Para 5)
"Taking an overall view of the matter, we are inclined to accept the appeal and grant the prayer of the appellant for release on."(Para 6)
"Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts..."(Para 9)
"We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail to the appellant in anticipation of arrest will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case."(Para 11)
Bail with Strings: Liberty on Conditions
The impugned order dated , was set aside. If arrested, Jayasree must be released on bail terms fixed by the trial court. She faces strict mandates: no witness tampering, mandatory attendance if summoned for further probe, and full cooperation.
This decision signals judicial caution in custodial trends for white-collar probes involving peripheral figures, particularly women. It may ease bail access for cooperators in temple asset cases, but leaves the merits untouched—ensuring the gold theft investigation marches on without prejudice.
