KOCHI: The Special Investigation Committee probing the alleged misappropriation of gold from artefacts at the Sabarimala temple on Friday moved the Kerala High Court to cancel the bail of tantri Kandararu Rajivaru, claiming that the relief granted to him led to a “serious miscarriage of justice”.
The court of inquiry commissioner and special judge, Kollam, had on February 18 granted bail to the tantri and observed that there was not even a “shred of evidence” against him in the cases related to the alleged loss of gold from the temple artefacts.
The Special Investigation Team is investigating the alleged misappropriation of gold from Dwarapalaka idols and Sreekovil door frames of the temple.
Rajivaru is the 16th accused in the Dwarapalaka case and the 13th accused in the Sreekovil case and the Vigilance Court has granted him bail in both the cases.
In its petition filed through Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan, the special court challenged the bail granted to the tantri in the Dwarapalaka case.
The bail granted to Rajivaru in the Sreekovil case will also be challenged in the coming days, P Narayanan said.
Besides canceling the tantri’s bail, the special court, in its plea, also sought expungement of the negative remarks made by the Vigilance Court in connection with the investigation.
It alleged that the Vigilance Court granted the Tantri “relief by ignoring all the facts, circumstances, role played by the defendant, other issues, evidence on record, necessity of additional custody and strong objections raised by the prosecution”.
It also claimed that the “unwarranted and unnecessary remarks” by the special court would interfere with the ongoing investigation as well.
“The impugned order granting bail and the observations contained therein suffer from serious legal defects, ignore the material evidence collected during the investigation and have led to a serious miscarriage of justice, which calls for the ‘intervention of this court,’” the court said in its petition.
The special court in its plea also said that the tantric had, at the relevant time, absolute authority in matters relating to rituals and religious sanctity of the temple, and the investigation revealed that he had submitted a written opinion dated June 18, 2019 approving the proposal to repaint the gold-clad artefacts as per an application filed by Unnikrishnan Buti, the prime accused in the cases.
The opinion given by the tantri formed the basis of the Travancore Devaswom Board’s decision to hand over the artefacts to Potty, SIT claimed.
It claimed that its investigation revealed that the tantric was physically present at Sannidhanam on July 19, 2019 when the first mahazar was prepared and that he signed the document in which the gold-covered artefacts were wrongly described as mere copper plates, allowing them to be taken out of the temple premises.
He did so “despite knowing with certainty that gold cladding work was carried out in 1998 at Sannidhanam itself” and did not raise any objection or alert the authorities regarding the “falsehood” of the description of the artefact, the SIT said in its petition.
The petition also said that the SIT investigation revealed that Rajevaru “deliberately abstained” from signing the subsequent mahazar dated July 20, 2019 even though he was present at the sannidhanam, “thereby trying to avoid direct trace while continuing to facilitate the illegal delegation and transfer of sacred artefacts outside the temple premises”.
“The materials collected during the investigation, including witness statements, documentary evidence and records, clearly indicate active facilitation and deliberate complicity and not mere passive silence.”
“In fact, the first accused and the other accused could not have committed the offense of misappropriation, had there not been active support on the part of the defendant. His influence and influence, as a tantric, enabled the other accused to commit the offences,” the special court alleged.
The Vigilance Court observed that the Special Court’s case of criminal conspiracy fails due to the admission that the petitioner did not sign the crucial report dated July 20, 2019.
She also said that the mere signing of the first report dated July 19, 2019, in and of itself, in the absence of any other incriminating circumstances, does not constitute a reason to implicate the petitioner at this stage, especially since the report was prepared pursuant to an official decision from the Commission.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
