High Court Upholds Arrests in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Probe and Dismisses Writ Petition

A Single-Judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen heard a writ petition challenging the arrest dated 19.12.2025 and subsequent remand orders in two criminal cases registered by the Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of alleged misappropriation of gold-clad temple articles from the Sabarimala Sreekovil. The petitioner, arrayed as accused in Crime Nos. 3700/2025 and 3701/2025, sought quashing of the arrest and remands as violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and relevant statutory safeguards.

The court dismissed the writ petition and held that the statutory and constitutional safeguards relating to communication of grounds of arrest, information to nominated persons and opportunity for legal representation were substantially complied with in the facts of the case. The judge found that the arrest memos and separate notices (Exts. P13 and P15) contained specific allegations of conspiracy and misappropriation tying the accused to the alleged scheme, and that the person who accompanied the accused could be regarded as a friend for the purpose of informing nominated persons. The court noted that delay in production caused by medical examination and travel did not vitiate the arrest where grounds were provided and the accused’s chosen counsel was informed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard… There is a significant difference in the phrases ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’ … the ‘grounds of arrest’ informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail.”

Background

The petition arose from two FIRs dated 11.10.2025 alleging that certain plates and fittings originally gold-clad at Sabarimala were removed and the gold stripped at premises said to be owned by the petitioner, attracting charges under Sections 403, 406, 409, 466, 467 and 120B r/w 34 IPC and Section 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioner contended that written grounds of arrest were cyclostyled, vague and identical to generic “reasons for arrest”; that the grounds were not supplied to a nominated relative or friend in time; that the remand application was in Malayalam (a language unknown to him) and was not supplied before remand; and that he was denied opportunity to consult an advocate before production late in the night.

The prosecution replied that arrest intimation and written grounds (Exts. P13 and P15) were furnished in English to the petitioner and to Sri Rajasekharan S., who accompanied the petitioner, and that the petitioner’s chosen counsel was informed telephonically of the arrest and intended production. The arrest memo and notices recited specific allegations of a conspiracy and concluded that “your arrest in this case is inevitable.”

The High Court analysed the competing authorities relied upon by the parties, including recent Supreme Court pronouncements distinguishing “reasons for arrest” from personalised “grounds of arrest” and prescribing minimum safeguards (including the two‑hour threshold in certain cases and communication to nominated persons). The judge read the contents of Exts. P13 and P15 and held they set out particular allegations linking the petitioner to the misappropriation and were therefore sufficient to convey the grounds. The court accepted that Rajasekharan’s accompanying presence and conduct placed him within the class of a friend for the purpose of Section 50A CrPC/Section 48 BNSS. The remand report being in Malayalam did not render the arrest void where grounds had been furnished in English and counsel had been informed; further, the delay in production caused by medical tests and travel did not alone invalidate the process. The court found no material to conclude that denial of pre-remand legal consultation established a breach requiring release. Consequently, the petition failed and was dismissed.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP(Crl.) No. 52 of 2026 (2026:KER:13173)
Case Title: Pankaj Bhandari v. State of Kerala & Deputy Superintendent of Police, SIT Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri B. Raman Pillai (Sr.), Sri S. Vishnu (V‑736), Sri V. S. Viswambharan, Shri Naik Chirag Dhananjay, Smt. Mathrawala Noopur Vishal, Shri Mahesh Bhanu S., Sri R. Anil, Shri Sujesh Menon V.B., Smt. Lilin Lal
For the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam; Sri Gracious Kuriakose, Additional Director General of Prosecution