‘No criminal intent’: Punjab and Haryana High Court grants pre-arrest bail to SGPC ex-official in missing saroops case

SGPC inquiry, missing saroops

• The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the instance of complainant Baldev Singh, a representative of Sikh Sadbhavna Dal, alleging that 328 sacred saroops (holy books) of “Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji”, which were in the custody of the SGPC, were found missing in 2016.
• It was alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with other the accused persons, was involved in unauthorised printing, distribution, disappearance and mishandling of the sacred saroops, misappropriation, and commission of a fraud worth Rs 9.82 lakh with the institution.
• It was also alleged that evidence pertaining to the said acts was destroyed, and the religious sentiments of the Sikh community were hurt.
• These allegations were based on the report of the inquiry committee constituted by the SGPC.
• After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.
• During the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner was working as a secretary with the SGPC and was allegedly responsible for supervising work related to handling and maintenance of records of the sacred saroops and associated accounts.
• Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had filed an application seeking the concession of anticipatory bail before the trial court.
• By an order of December 12, 2025, the arrest of the petitioner was stayed till December 18, 2025.
• However, subsequently, on December 20, 2025, his bail application was dismissed.

‘FIR not at instance of SGPC’

• It was placed on record before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the alleged incidents pertain to the period from 2011 to 2016, whereas the FIR in question was registered only in December 2025.
• The court found that the FIR was not lodged by the SGPC itself, which is the competent body entrusted with the management of religious affairs, 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.
• If any further inquiry is required from the petitioner, the same can be effectively carried out by directing him to join and cooperate with the investigation as and when called upon to do so.
• The petitioner is stated to have clean antecedents and has expressed his willingness to join the investigation.
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to furnishing adequate personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

‘Retired with unblemished record’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prateek Sodhi argued that the bare perusal of the FIR reveals that it is vague, devoid of particulars and does not attribute any specific role to the petitioner.
• Even as per the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was never accused of misappropriation but only of negligence, they added.
• The co-accused Gurmukh Singh and Baj Singh, against whom there are even graver allegations, have been granted the concession of interim anticipatory bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• He stated that he had joined as a clerk with the SGPC and retired in 2023 from the post of secretary with an unblemished record.
• The petitioner claimed that he has been made a scapegoat due to the connivance and illegal acts of certain higher officials in a case relating to the alleged misappropriation of saroops.
• The petitioner claimed that he had been diligently performing his assigned duties and had been reporting all relevant proceedings and incidents to senior officers from time to time.
• As per the records of the SGPC itself, the petitioner claimed that he had no role in the alleged missing saroops.
• Sodhi added that the said inquiry committee allegedly submitted its report in 2020, indicting the petitioner, though a copy of the same was never furnished to him.

‘Saroops under control of accused’

• Appearing for the complainant, senior advocate Pradeep Virk has argued that the present case involves serious allegations of forgery, fabrication, tampering with evidence, destruction of official records of SGPC and disrespect of the Guru Granth Sahib by senior officials and sewadars since 2013-14.
• He referred to an incident of May 2016 at Gurudwara Ramsar of Amritsar, where approximately 80 saroops were allegedly damaged in a fire.
• The inquiry commission found that 328 saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji were unaccounted for and were under the control of the petitioner and his co-accused, and recommended legal action.
• Under the supervision of the petitioner, the scriptures were placed in a ‘suspense account’, which showed deliberate negligence on his part.
• In February 2020, 61 scriptures were prepared in an unauthorised manner from additional parts. He had failed to perform his duties intentionally.
• The petitioner acted in collusion with the co-accused in the commission of the offences.