Kerala High Court
Santhosh Kumar S.R vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
2026:KER:16594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 558 OF 2026
CRIME NO.VC 2/2026 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
SANTHOSH KUMAR S.R
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR,RUGMINI BHAVAN, MULLOOR, MULLOOR P.O,
VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN V.G. (K/795/2004)
SMT.V.JAYA RAGI
SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)
SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN
SMT.SREELAKSHMI J PILLAI
SMT.A.S.SALMA
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, PATHANAMTHITTA UNIT,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH A.,
SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2026, THE COURT ON 23.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 2
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026 1st accused in Crime No.VC 02/2026 of Pathanamthitta Police Station seeks pre-arrest bail in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS' hereinafter).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 314, 61(2), 3(5) and 344 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS' hereinafter) as well as under Sections 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, 'the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018' hereinafter), by the accused.
4. In the present case, the FIR was registered pursuant B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 3 to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in SSCR No.03/2026, dated 13.01.2026, acting on a report submitted by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner, which detected blatant acts of criminal misappropriation of the proceeds of 'Adiya Sishtam Ghee'. Upon finding merit in the report, the Division Bench issued the following directions as recorded in paragraph No.20 of the order. The same reads as follows:
"20. The following directions are accordingly issued:
a) The Chief Vigilance and Security Officer shall forthwith forward the complaint dated 10.01.2026 to the Director, Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption Bureau.
b) The Additional 7th respondent shall constitute a team of upright and competent officers and shall initiate steps to register a crime on the strength of the report dated 10.01.2026 submitted by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer. The team so constituted shall conduct a B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 4 meticulous, coordinated, and effective investigation into the matters referred to above and those disclosed in the said report. It is made clear that the team shall not disclose any details of the investigation to the public or the media.
c) The investigating team shall file a report before this Court within a period of one month from today, indicating the progress of the investigation.
d) In view of the law laid down by this Court in Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala, Venugopal V. and Others v. State of Kerala, Yakoob Purayil v. State of Kerala and in view of the nature of allegations, prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not required in the present case.
e) The team so constituted shall be answerable only to this Court, and before filing the final report, prior permission of this Court shall be obtained."
5. In paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9 of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, the allegations against B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 5 the accused have been specifically dealt and the same are as under:
"3. It is submitted that SSCR No. 3/2026 was initiated by this Hon'ble Court suo motu following a report by the Devaswom Special Commissioner, which incorporated the findings of Report No. SP/SB/210/26/TDB/VIG dated 10.01.2026 from the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer (CVSO) of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The CVSO's inspection revealed a deficit of 13,679 packets of "Aadiya Shishttam Neyy" (ghee) [worth ₹100/- per packet] at the Maramath counter at Sannidhanam, valued at ₹13,67,900/-, which had not been remitted to the Devasom account. Further discrepancies were noted during the Mandala-Makaravilakku season (17.11.2025 to 27.12.2025), where a stock shortage of 22,565 packets, valued at ₹22,56,500/, was detected at the Temple Special Office (TSO). Specific allegations were also raised against Sunil Kumar K.R. @ Sunil Kumar Potti (Accused-13) a Devaswam Board employee, for failing to issue receipts and temporarily misappropriating ₹68,200/- for a period of 17 days.
4. It is submitted that by way of an Interim B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 6 Order dated 13.01.2026 in the aforementioned SSCR, this Hon'ble Court impleaded the Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) as the Additional 7 th Respondent. This Hon'ble Court directed a comprehensive investigation to ascertain the full extent of financial irregularities regarding the sale of "Aadiya Shishttam Neyy" at Sannidhanam. In strict compliance with this directive, the Director, VACB, vide Order No. C1-773/2026/DVACB dated 14.01.2026, constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by the DySP, VACB, Pathanamthitta Unit, under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Southern Range.
6(a). It is submitted that the investigation in VC- 02/2026/PTA pertains to systemic irregularities during the Sabarimala Mandala-Makaravilakku Mahotsavam of 2025-26. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were deputed as Temple Special Officers during various phases of duty at Sannidanam. Temple Special Officers are staff of the Devaswam Board deputed at Sannidanam for Controlling and supervising the sale of ' prasadams' including the ghee packets. Accused Nos. 4 to 33 were tasked with the sale of Aadiya Shishttam Neyy (ghee) packets through the B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 7 Maramathu-II counter ( Maramath Adiya Sishtam Neyy counter). As per the report of the Chief Vigilance And Security Officer, out of 89,300 packets issued to the Maramath counter -II, and after accounting for damaged stock and closing balances, the accused were liable to remit proceeds for 89,129 packets. However, the accused had remitted only ₹75,45,000/- (corresponding to 75,450 packets), thereby misappropriated an amount of ₹13,67,900/- ( Thirteen Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand and Nine Hundred only).
(b) It is further submitted that as per the report of the CVSO, the stock at the Temple Special Office should have been 28,550 packets as of 02.01.2026. However, physical verification revealed only 5,985 packets, confirming a shortage of 22,565 packets. This shortfall is attributed to the gross irregularities and failure in supervisory duties by Accused Nos. 1 to 3 (Temple Special Officers), resulting in a financial loss of ₹22,56,500/- ( Twenty Two Lakh Fifty Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the Board.
(c) It is submitted that Sunil Kumar K.R. @ Sunil Kumar Potti (Accused-13) specifically misappropriated ₹68,200/- from ghee sales, retaining the funds for 17 days, and only remitted the amount after the B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 8 discrepancies were unearthed by the State Audit Department.
(d) It is submitted that, in aggregate, the accused persons have secured an unlawful pecuniary gain of ₹36,24,400/- (Thirty six lakh twenty four thousand four hundred rupees only), causing a corresponding and wrongful financial loss to the Travancore Devaswom Board.
7.It is submitted that the investigation conducted by the Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta has revealed systemic failures and procedural irregularities that occurred during the Petitioner's (Accused-1) supervisory tenure. He had worked as the Temple Special Officer for the periods from 16.11.2025 to 18.11.2025 and from 06.12.2025 to 15.12.2025 in connection with the Sabarimala Mandala- Makaravilakku season 2025-26. He had also worked as the Assistant Temple Officer under Sri. Sainu raj ( Accused No-2) and Sri.Aneesh.M.T ( Accused No-3). Hence he had served as either Temple Special Officer or Assistant Temple Officer over the period when the misappropriation was carried out (17.11.2025 to 27.12.2025).
8. The investigation established through examination B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 9 of seized documents that the accounts with respect to the distribution of ghee packets are not maintained properly at the Temple Special Office. The investigation has also revealed that the Travancore Devaswom Board has not issued any specific orders related to the duties and responsibilities of the Devaswom staff who are detailed for counter duty, creating a convenient vacuum of accountability that appears to have been exploited by the accused persons, including the Petitioner (Accused-1). As the supervising Temple Special Officer during his two tenure periods, the Petitioner (Accused-1) received 1,23,950 packets of ghee worth ₹1,23,95,000/- from the contractor, yet he was duty bound as per order No R.O.C. 8070/09/Est.1 dated 29.09.2010 of Devaswam Board to establish and maintain proper accounting systems, conduct physical verification of stocks, ensure proper distribution to counters with authenticated documentation, monitor the sale proceedings at each counter, verify the collections and remittances, and ensure that all transactions were properly documented and reconciled on a daily basis . His complete failure to do so, despite being vested with the highest supervisory authority and despite personally handling massive B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 10 quantities of valuable stock points not to mere negligence but to possible participation in the criminal conspiracy to defraud the Devaswom Board.
9. It is submitted that the investigation has also substantiated serious irregularities committed by Accused No. 13, Sunil Kumar K.R. @ Sunil Kumar Potti, who worked as counter staff during the 2 nd, 3rd, and 5th phases at the Maramathu counter.
Investigation established that he had misappropriated an amount of ₹68,200/- (Rupees sixty-eight thousand two hundred only) from the entrusted sale proceeds of ghee packets, diverting the funds for his personal use. It was only after a lapse of seventeen days, upon detection of his misconduct by the Audit officials, that he remitted the misappropriated amount back to the Travancore Devaswom Board Fund. In view of the gravity of the offence and the necessity of custodial interrogation, Accused No. 13 was arrested on 04.02.2026 and produced before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kollam, on the same day and remanded. During the course of investigation, Call Detail Records (CDRs) together with bank statements of all accused persons were collected and are presently under scrutiny." B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 11
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the allegations in the FIR produced as Annexure A3, the allegation of misappropriation of ₹13,67,900 (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Sixty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred only) was alleged against accused Nos.4 to 33 from 17.11.2025 to 26.12.2025 and allegation regarding involvement of Temple Special Officers which resulted in misappropriation of ₹22,56,500 (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakh Fifty-Six Thousand Five Hundred only) are stated during the period between 27.12.2025 to 02.01.2026 and in fact, as on 27.12.2025, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Assistant Temple Officer, and therefore, as regards to allegation of misappropriation confined to that of the Temple Special Officer, the petitioner has no role. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a person having 60% physical impairment as evident from Annexure A1 Disability Certificate issued in the year 2021, which B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 12 is valid for 5 years. It is also submitted that, as per Annexure A4 relieving order, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Special Duty at Sabarimala on 27.12.2025, having served in the position from 15.11.2025. Thus, offering co-operation in the matter of investigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor strongly opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and reiterated the grounds as 'a' to 'p' in paragraph No.10 of the report while opposing bail. It is pointed out that it is highly necessary to arrest and question the petitioner in custody to ascertain the quantum of misappropriated funds during his tenure as Temple Special Officer, and also to recover the said amount from the petitioner. This includes the collection of sample handwritings and signatures of the petitioner for comparison with the questioned documents seized during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that, if pre-arrest B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 13 bail would be granted to the petitioner at this stage, the investigation would be seriously affected. This apprehension could be seen from the report of the Investigating Officer in paragraph No.11. It is further pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the Sabarimala season lasts for 41 days, and in the year 2025, it started on 16.11.2025 and concluded on 27.12.2025. During the entire period, the petitioner worked there and the allegation of misappropriation was for the said period.
8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor produced copy of the judgment in Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 949] and relied on paragraph No.10 thereof, which reads as under:
"10. First of all, I shall address, whether the petitioner herein would deserve anticipatory bail? Going by the prosecution allegation as could be gathered from the records, including the report of the investigating officer, the petitioner has involvement in the misappropriation of Rs. 1.14 crores, which he alleged B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 14 to have allotted illegally to the group ventures without interviewing the beneficiaries, without verifying the authenticity of the documents by physically verifying the same and without verifying whether they had availed any loan for starting the ventures from any bank. Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no iota of evidence to see that the petitioner has implemented the scheme and authorised the beneficiaries, who were not approved by the corporation, the petitioner would admit that there are violation of department norms as stated in Ground 'G' of the bail application. That apart, the records would show that the petitioner has involvement in this crime, where 1.14 Crores alleged to be misappropriated. In addition to that, as per the report of the investigating officer, the petitioner, though a public officer, has involvement in multiple crimes, as stated in paragraphs 13, 12, 14 and 15 extracted herein above."
9. Coming to the facts of this case, as already pointed out, the report filed by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner before the Division Bench of this Court led to registration of this B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 15 crime. Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and was not involved in this crime, in any manner, the learned Special Public Prosecutor placed on record the report of the Audit Officer dated 13.02.2026. As per Item No.8 of the report, the same pertains to the 'Adiya Sishtam Ghee' packets and the loss sustained by the Sabarimala Temple. As per the report, it is stated that during the period from 17.11.2025 till 31.12.2025, the total numbers of 'Adiya Sishtam Ghee' sold from the temple were 358519 packets and 'Adiya Sishtam Ghee' sold through website, viz., sabarimalaonline.org were 13934 packets. Thus, the total sale of 'Adiya Sishtam Ghee' is stated as 344585 packets and the amount to be remitted in the account of the Devaswom was calculated as ₹3,44,58,500 (Rupees Three Crore Forty-Four Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) at the rate of Rs.100/- per one packet. Out of which, the amount remitted in the account of the temple is ₹3,23,19,310 (Rupees Three Crore B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 16 Twenty-Three Lakh Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred Ten only) and the loss sustained to the temple is calculated as ₹21,39,190 (Rupees Twenty-One Lakh Thirty-Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety only). Thus, even though there is a reference in the FIR regarding the period from 27.12.2025 till 02.01.2026, in fact, the allegation is confined in between the period from 17.11.2025 till 27.12.2025, and during this period, the petitioner held the post of Assistant Temple Officer according to the learned counsel for the petitioner and as conceded by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The report would indicate the details in minute niceties so that everyone could easily understand the misappropriation alleged and what actually happened during the period. When the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegation, it is pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that as per the circular issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board ROC No.8070/09/Est.I, dated B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 17 29.09.2010, the duties and responsibilities of the Devaswom Board employees posted, have been prescribed, and as per Item No.2, the duties of a Temple Special Officer are specifically assigned and it is the duty of the Temple Special Officer to ensure supply of various items including 'Adiya Sishtam Ghee' in accordance with the necessity of the devotees after verifying the stock and ensuring its supply without fail. Further, Temple Special Officers are assigned with the duty to ensure remittance of collections made in various ticket counters and to ensure further that there should be increase in the income in excess of the income derived during the previous year. In addition to that, it is the duty of the Temple Special Officer to ensure that no malpractice would be carried out at the counters, and also to take the assistance of the Executive Officers if any issue comes to his notice. Therefore, the petitioner, who worked upto 27.12.2025, could not escape from his liability merely by pleading innocence. The learned Special Public Prosecutor B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 18 further pointed out that, even though the petitioner claims to be a disabled person with 60% disability, the prosecution collected materials and found that he had obtained a two-wheeler license, which is still valid, and he had performed his duties at Sabarimala without any apparent problems arising from his disability. Therefore, the disability now canvassed in no way incapacitated him from doing the work and the same by itself is not a reason to consider his case in segregation from other accused persons.
10. Having analysed the facts and attending circumstances in this case, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent could not be found, prima facie. But the prosecution records reveal the role of the petitioner in this misappropriation, prima facie, as discussed afore. In such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation, recovery of the money misappropriated, and how it was utilised, are absolutely necessary to accomplish eventful prosecution, as submitted by the B.A.NO.558 OF 2026 19 learned Special Public Prosecutor.
Therefore, this anticipatory bail application is liable to fail and is accordingly dismissed.
The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and on failure to do so, the Investigating Officer shall proceed against the petitioner as per law, without fail.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE Bb