Santhosh Kumar S.R vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1956 Ker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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