The Special Investigation Team (SIT), probing the Sabarimala gold heist, on Friday moved the Kerala High Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Sabarimala Thantri Kandararu Rajeevaru who is
arrayed as an accused in the case.
File Photo: IANS
The Special Investigation Team (SIT), probing the Sabarimala gold
heist, on Friday moved the Kerala High Court seeking cancellation of
the bail granted to Sabarimala Thantri Kandararu Rajeevaru who is
arrayed as an accused in the case.
The Kollam Vigilance Court on February 18 granted bail to Thantri
Rajeevaru in connection with the cases involving the misappropriation
of gold from the temple’s Dwarapalaka (guardian deity) sculptures and
the Kattilappali (door frame), observing that the prosecution could
not prove that the Thantri had a direct connection with Unnikrishnan
Potty, the prime accused in the case.
Advertisement
The SIT, in its plea, claimed that, while granting bail to Rajeevaru,
the vigilance court ignored all the facts, circumstances, role played
by him (Rajeevaru) and other issues, evidence on record, necessity of
further custody and the strong objections raised by the prosecution.
Advertisement
The plea states that the investigation carried out by the SIT revealed
that Rajeevaru was physically present at Sabarimala and signed on the
mahazar, which had falsely described the gold-cladded items as copper
plates. It is further alleged that this was knowingly done since he
had previous knowledge regarding the gold cladding as evident from the
written letter submitted in 1998 by Rajeevaru and three other
thantries recommending gold-cladding on the door, Ghanadwaram,
Dwarapalaka idols, etc.
“The impugned order granting bail and the observations therein suffer
from serious legal infirmities, overlook material evidence collected
during investigation and have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice
warranting ‘interference by this court,” the SIT said in its plea.
The plea also seeks to expunge the alleged adverse remarks made by the
Special Judge against the investigation, calling them ‘unwarranted and
prejudicial to investigation’. The SIT is carrying out the
investigation into the cases based on the direction of the Division
Bench of the High Court.
Advertisement
