Missing Sacred Saroops: High Court Grants Bail, Citing Negligence Over Criminal Intent

In a significant legal development involving the sanctity of the Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji , the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana has granted anticipatory bail to a former Secretary of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC). The ruling provides clarity on the threshold for custodial interrogation when allegations point toward professional negligence rather than overt criminal misappropriation.

Case Background: The Mystery of the 328 Saroops

The case stems from an FIR registered on December 7, 2025, following a complaint by representatives of the ‘Sikh Sadbhavna Dal’. The allegation centers on the disappearance of 328 sacred saroops (holy books) from the custody of the SGPC during the period spanning 2011 to 2016.

The petitioner, Manjit Singh, served as a Secretary at the SGPC until his compulsory retirement in 2023. While the investigative findings suggested large-scale forgery and record tampering within the institution, the petitioner argued that he was being scapegoated. He asserted that the internal departmental inquiries focused on administrative negligence rather than any malicious act of misappropriation.

Arguments from the Bar

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR was vague and failed to attribute specific roles. Furthermore, the petitioner’s legal team emphasized that the institution itself had not initiated the criminal complaint and that an earlier version of the complaint, filed years prior, had been dismissed. They highlighted that co-accused individuals facing similar accusations had already been granted interim relief.

Contrarily, the State, supported by the complainant, argued that the petitioner held a position of responsibility when accounts were handled with “deliberate negligence.” They maintained that custodial interrogation was essential to dismantle what they described as a nexus of forgery and record destruction that had shielded high-ranking officials for years.

The Court’s Reasoning

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra’s analysis focused on the nature of the evidence and the temporal distance between the alleged incidents and the registration of the FIR. The court noted that because the evidence required for mounting a prosecution is largely documentary, the necessity for custodial detention was significantly diminished.

The court distinguished between criminal intent and procedural oversight, observing that the findings against the petitioner did not prima facie support an accusation of religious sacrilege or intentional misappropriation.

Key Observations

The High Court’s order underscored that the procedural nature of the investigation did not necessitate jail time:

• On the nature of allegations: "The allegations do not prima facie indicate that he was involved in any act of misappropriation or that he committed any form of disrespect to holy saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji."
• On the delay in reporting: "The alleged incidents pertain to the period from 2011 to 2016, whereas the FIR in question has been registered only on 07.12.2025, after an inordinate delay, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished."
• On the necessity of custody: "It is also apparent that the evidence sought to be collected by the Investigating Agency is largely documentary in nature and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be necessary."
• On the complainant’s status: "The FIR has not been lodged by the SGPC itself, which is the competent body… but rather at the instance of a third party, despite the matter having remained within the knowledge of the SGPC for a considerable period of time."

Final Decision: Balancing Justice and Cooperation

Finding that the petitioner had clean antecedents and a willingness to cooperate, the Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is mandated to join the investigation within ten days and must furnish adequate personal and surety bonds.

This judgment serves as a reminder that even in cases involving sensitive public or religious trust, the requirements for custodial remand under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita must be based on demonstrated necessity rather than suspicion alone. While the broader investigation into the missing saroops continues, the court has signaled that administrative lapses should be treated distinctly from criminal conduct until concrete evidence of the latter is established.