Verdict on Unnikrishnan Potti’s bail plea today

The arguments on the bail application of Unnikrishnan Potti, prime accused in a case involving the theft of gold from the Dwarapalaka sculptures at the Sabarimala temple, have concluded and Kollam Vigilance Judge C.S. Mohit is scheduled to deliver the verdict on Wednesday.

While the defence argued that Mr. Potti is entitled to statutory bail as the investigation team failed to file a chargesheet within 90 days of his arrest, the prosecution strongly opposed the petition.

Public prosecutor argued that the accused is likely to abscond if released and emphasised that the investigation is at a critical juncture where further inquiry is essential. The prosecution contended that the relationship between Mr. Potti and senior Tantri Kandararu Rajeevaru, who is also in remand, requires further clarification.

The investigators need more time to determine the exact quantity of the missing gold and the various methods used for the theft in order to recover the stolen property.

The public prosecutor also urged the court that if bail were to be considered, it should only be granted under stringent conditions, including a high bail amount.

Even if bail is granted in this specific case, Mr. Potti will remain in custody due to his involvement in the theft of gold from the kattilappady (sanctum door frame). He was arrested in the latter case on November 3, and the 90-day period for that investigation will end on February 1.

The special investigation team (SIT) is racing to file an interim chargesheet before the February 1 deadline to prevent the accused from securing bail in both cases.

According to the SIT’s assessment, the report from the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) in Thiruvananthapuram, which analysed samples collected from Sabarimala, has made the case more complex. There is a strong possibility of further arrests in the coming days.

The SIT is also evaluating the legal validity of filing a chargesheet without recovering the stolen articles, fearing that the defence might challenge any report that lacks comprehensive evidence and statements.

In a related development, the court granted the SIT one-day custody of former administrative officer S. Sreekumar. Investigators sought his custody to record detailed statements, as he was serving as the Sabarimala administrative officer when the alleged crimes took place.

Following a period of intense questioning, Mr. Sreekumar was produced back before the court in the evening and subsequently returned to jail.