No Charge Sheet After Months of SIT Investigation in Sabarimala Gold Case Raises Questions
Even months after the Sabarimala gold theft case was registered, the investigation has failed to produce major breakthroughs. As a result, the main accused, Unnikrishnan Potti, and others who are currently in judicial custody may soon become eligible for default bail.
Under Indian law, if the investigating agency fails to file even a preliminary charge sheet within 60 days in cases carrying a maximum punishment of up to 10 years, the accused can seek default bail from the court. Unnikrishnan Potti was first arrested on October 17 by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the High Court, based on cases registered by the Crime Branch on October 10. Former Sabarimala Administrative Officer Murari Babu was arrested on October 23, followed by former Devaswom Executive Officer D. Sudheesh Kumar on November 1. Despite the lapse of 60 days since their arrests, the SIT has not filed even a preliminary charge sheet.
The remand period of former Devaswom Board Presidents N. Vasu and A. Padmakumar, who were arrested later, is also nearing the 60-day limit. Even after three months of investigation, authorities have been unable to clearly determine what happened to the gold plates or how much gold was actually stolen.
Beyond the findings of the Devaswom Vigilance, the SIT has failed to identify the “big players” mentioned earlier by the High Court or confirm whether any international transactions were involved. Only two weeks remain before the investigation deadline granted by the High Court expires.
Meanwhile, former Devaswom Board President N. Vasu has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail, stating that he had no role in the alleged conspiracy and that he has fully cooperated with the investigation. A bail plea filed by former Devaswom Board member K.P. Sankaradas is likely to be considered by the court on the 7th.
Criticism is also mounting over the SIT’s failure to widen the investigation to all those connected to the main accused, Unnikrishnan Potti. Although the SIT collected call detail records (CDRs) of people who were in contact with him, no detailed follow-up investigation appears to have been conducted. Sources suggest that the list includes public representatives, but their names have not been made public so far.
The High Court recently issued sharp criticism against the SIT led by ADGP H. Venkatesh. According to police sources, if the court concludes that the investigation is being derailed, it may consider replacing Venkatesh with another senior officer.