Anticipatory Bail Granted in SGPC Missing Saroops Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Flags Delay and Absence of Criminal Intent
Case Name: Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 27.03.2026
Citation: CRM-M-12246-2026
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the allegations against him primarily reflected negligence rather than criminal intent or misappropriation, and that custodial interrogation was not necessary given the documentary nature of evidence and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR involving serious allegations including offences under Sections 295, 295-A, 408, 409, 465, 120-B IPC and provisions of the Jagat Jot Shri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Act, 2008. The case arose from allegations regarding the disappearance and mishandling of 328 sacred saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji allegedly under the supervision of SGPC officials.
The petitioner, a retired Secretary of the SGPC, contended that he had no role in the alleged misappropriation and was falsely implicated. It was argued that the allegations were vague, no specific role was attributed to him, and even departmental proceedings only indicated negligence. It was further highlighted that the FIR was registered after a substantial delay despite the matter being known for years.
The State opposed the bail, asserting that the petitioner was in a supervisory position and had failed in his duties, thereby contributing to the disappearance and mishandling of sacred texts. It was also argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy.
Upon consideration, the Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner did not prima facie establish misappropriation or intentional wrongdoing but were limited to negligence. The Court also noted the inordinate delay in registration of the FIR and the fact that the complaint was not filed by the SGPC itself but by a third party.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It held that custodial interrogation was not required as the evidence was largely documentary in nature and could be collected without arrest. The Court directed the petitioner to join the investigation within ten days and cooperate with the authorities as required. It further ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bonds and compliance with statutory conditions.