Kochi, March 13 The SIT investigating the alleged misappropriation of gold from Sabarimala temple artifacts has moved the Kerala High Court to cancel the bail of the tantri (chief priest), Kandararu Rajeevaru, claiming that the relief granted to him has resulted in a "grave miscarriage of justice".
The Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kollam, had on February 18 granted bail to the tantri, observing that there was "no evidence" against him in the cases related to the alleged loss of gold from temple artifacts.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) is investigating the alleged misappropriation of gold from the Dwarapalaka (guardian deity) idols and the door frames of the Sreekovil (sanctum sanctorum) of the temple.
Rajeevaru is the 16th accused in the Dwarapalaka case and the 13th accused in the Sreekovil case, and the vigilance court had granted him bail in both cases.
In its plea filed through Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) P Narayanan, the SIT has challenged the bail granted to the tantri in the Dwarapalaka case.
APP Narayanan said that the bail granted to Rajeevaru in the Sreekovil case will also be challenged in the coming days.
Besides cancellation of the tantri's bail, the SIT has also sought to have the adverse remarks made by the vigilance court regarding the investigation expunged.
It has claimed that the vigilance court granted the relief to the tantri "by ignoring all the facts, circumstances, the role played by the respondent (Rajeevaru), and other issues, the evidence on record, the necessity of further custody, and the strong objections raised by the prosecution".
It has also claimed that the "unwarranted and unnecessary observations" by the special court will interfere with the ongoing investigation.
"The impugned order granting bail and the observations therein suffer from serious legal infirmities, overlook material evidence collected during the investigation, and have resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this court," the SIT has said in its plea.
In its plea, the SIT has further said that at the relevant time, the tantri held ultimate authority in matters concerning rituals and the religious sanctity of the temple, and the probe has revealed that he furnished a typed opinion dated June 18, 2019, agreeing with the proposal of re-plating the gold-cladded artifacts, pursuant to an application submitted by Unnikrishnan Potty, the main accused in the cases.
The opinion submitted by the tantri formed the basis for the decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to hand over the artifacts to Potty, the SIT has claimed.
It has contended that its probe revealed that the tantri was physically present at the Sannidhanam on July 19, 2019, when the first mahazar was prepared, and that he signed the document in which the gold-cladded artifacts were falsely described as mere copper plates, allowing them to be taken out of the temple premises.
He did this "despite having definite knowledge that gold cladding work had been conducted in 1998 at the Sannidhanam itself," and did not raise any objection or alert the authorities regarding the "falsity" of the artifact's description, the SIT has said in its plea.
Its petition further said that the SIT probe revealed that Rajeevaru "purposefully abstained" from signing the subsequent mahazar dated July 20, 2019, though he was present at the Sannidhanam, "thereby attempting to avoid direct traceability while still facilitating the illegal entrustment and transportation of the sacred artifacts outside the temple premises".
"The materials collected during the investigation, including witness statements, documentary evidence, and records, clearly indicate active facilitation and willful connivance rather than mere passive silence."
"In fact, the 1st accused (Potty) and other accused persons could not have committed the misappropriation had there not been active support from the part of the respondent (tantri). His influence and position as the tantri enabled the other accused to commit the offenses," the SIT claimed.
The vigilance court had observed that the case of the SIT regarding criminal conspiracy fails on account of the admitted fact that the petitioner did not sign the crucial mahazar dated July 20, 2019.
It had also said that the mere signing of the first mahazar dated July 19, 2019, by itself, in the absence of any other incriminating circumstances, is not a ground to implicate the petitioner at this stage, especially since the mahazar was prepared pursuant to a formal decision of the Board.