The Kerala High Court has taken up the matter of two bail applications filed by R. Murari Babu, the second accused in the high-profile Sabarimala gold‑theft case, and directed the prosecution to obtain instructions regarding his plea. The case concerns the alleged misappropriation of gold from the Sabarimala Temple, which has attracted considerable public attention due to the involvement of Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) officials and the religious significance of the property. The Court scheduled the next hearing for consideration of the bail applications, deferring its final decision to allow the prosecution to present its stance on the matter.
Murari Babu, a former Administrative Officer of the TDB who was suspended from his post as Deputy Devaswom Commissioner after the offences were registered, faces serious allegations. The Crime Branch lodged an FIR against him, including multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code such as conspiracy, dishonest misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. All charges were read with Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done with common intention. The prosecution contends that Babu’s actions played a critical role in facilitating the theft of the temple’s gold items, which had been placed on sacred idols and structural plates, making the case particularly sensitive.
The allegations against Murari Babu focus on his role while serving as Administrative Officer. It is claimed that he mischaracterised the gold-plated idols and structural plates of the temple as being made of copper and recommended their re-plating. According to the prosecution, this mischaracterisation allegedly allowed the removal of the original gold items and their handover to the prime accused in the case. His position in the temple administration gave him access and authority over temple property, and the prosecution claims that he abused this position to facilitate the misappropriation.
In his bail applications, Murari Babu contended that he is innocent and that he never had custody or control over the gold-clad items at the temple. He stated that his custodial interrogation had been completed, his residence was searched, and his bank accounts verified, with no incriminating material found. He emphasized his willingness to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and assured the Court of his readiness to comply with any conditions it deemed necessary if bail were granted.
The Kerala High Court, while taking note of the gravity of the allegations and the high-profile nature of the case, decided not to grant bail immediately. Instead, it sought the government’s and prosecution’s stand to ensure that the matter is considered thoroughly, balancing the investigative requirements with the legal rights of the accused. The Court’s decision to defer its ruling and issue instructions to the prosecution reflects judicial caution and a methodical approach to handling sensitive cases involving public officials and significant public interest. The matter is listed for further hearing on a future date, allowing all parties, including the prosecution and the defence, to present arguments and material before the Court reaches a final decision on the grant of bail.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.