The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Pankaj Bhandari, CEO of Smart Creations, challenging his arrest in connection with the Sabarimala gold loot case.
A single bench of Justice A Badharudeen dismissed Bhandari’s petition which claimed that the arrest was illegal as it did not follow the procedure prescribed by law including furnishing grounds of arrest.
According to the prosecution, Bhandari conspired with other accused, including prime accused Unnikrishnan Potty, to misappropriate gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and the doorframes of the Sreekovil at the Sabarimala Temple.
The case pertains to the allegations that gold went missing from the gold-plated coverings of the Dwarapalaka idols and the door frames to the sanctum of the Sabarimala temple. It is said to have gone missing after certain repair works were conducted under the sponsorship of one Unnikrishnan Potti at Smart Creations, the Chennai based private firm.
Bhandari was arraigned as an accused in the two first information reports (FIRs) registered by the Crime Branch in Thiruvananthapuram under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 466 and 467 (forgery), along with Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
He was arrested on December 19 and has been in custody since then. He approached the Court seeking to quash his arrest and remand orders and a declaration that his arrest was illegal.
In his petition, Bhandari contended that his arrest was unlawful and carried out without sufficient grounds. “The grounds of arrest contain no grounds or reasons of arrest whatsoever and simply state that “your arrest in this case is inevitable”. There is not even a whisper as to why the arrest of the petitioner was required or necessary,” the petition read.
He also submitted that the remand application and proceedings were in Malayalam, a language unfamiliar to him, as he is a Tamil speaker, further depriving him of a fair hearing and argued that this directly violated Article 22(1) (fundamental safeguards to any person arrested/detained) of the Indian Constitution.
Bhandari’s counsel had argued that there was no proper communication of grounds of arrest to Bhandari or his relatives. The prosecution however, maintained that all requirements were complied with and that the arrest was carried out in accordance with law. The Director General of Prosecution had argued that the grounds of arrest were communicated to him and his staff member Rajasekharan S. on the same day as his arrest. Later, his wife was intimated by email also.
After hearing the arguments of the both sides, , the court on Friday rejected Bhandari’s plea