The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that mere allegations of negligence in the handling of sacred religious texts, without evidence of criminal intent or active participation in forgery or sacrilege, cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail. This ruling reinforces the principle that custodial interrogation must be strictly necessary and proportionate to the alleged offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Manjit Singh, a retired Secretary of the Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), Amritsar, is accused in FIR No. 168 dated 07.12.2025, registered under Sections 295, 295-A, 408, 409, 465, 120-B of the IPC and Section 5 of the Jagat Jot Shri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Act, 2008, with later additions of Sections 466, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The FIR was filed by Baldev Singh, representative of Sikh Sadbhavna Dal, alleging that 328 sacred saroops (holy books) of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, under the custody of SGPC, went missing between 2011 and 2016. The complainant further alleged unauthorized printing, misappropriation, destruction of records, and deliberate disrespect to the holy scriptures, with an alleged financial fraud of Rs. 9,82,700/-.
Key Facts
- The petitioner joined SGPC as a Clerk in 2005 and retired as Secretary in 2023 with an unblemished service record.
- He was never posted in the Printing Department, where the alleged misappropriation occurred between 2011 and 2016.
- A news report dated 31.05.2020 revealed that 257 saroops were missing, prompting SGPC to refer the matter to Akal Takhat Sahib.
- An inquiry committee was constituted by SGPC and submitted its report on 23.08.2020, naming the petitioner for negligence but without affording him a hearing or providing a copy of the report.
- The petitioner was suspended on 28.08.2020 and served a chargesheet on 21.10.2022, to which he submitted a detailed reply on 27.10.2022.
- He was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 30.09.2023 based on findings of negligence, not criminal misconduct.
- An earlier complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Balwinder Singh, General Secretary of the same association, was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, on 08.04.2021.
- The FIR was registered only on 07.12.2025, nearly a decade after the alleged events, with no explanation for the delay.
- The FIR was filed by a third party, not by SGPC, which had been aware of the matter since 2016.
Procedural History
- 23.08.2020: SGPC inquiry committee submitted report implicating petitioner for negligence.
- 28.08.2020: Petitioner suspended by SGPC.
- 21.10.2022: Chargesheet issued against petitioner.
- 27.10.2022: Petitioner submitted detailed reply to chargesheet.
- 30.09.2023: Petitioner compulsorily retired.
- 07.12.2025: FIR registered at Police Station Division-C, Amritsar.
- 12.12.2025: Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, stayed arrest till 18.12.2025.
- 20.12.2025: Bail application dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge.
- 18.03.2026: Petition reserved for judgment.
- 27.03.2026: Judgment pronounced by High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: He was falsely implicated as a scapegoat. He had no role in the Printing Department or the alleged misappropriation. He reported all incidents to superiors. The allegations against him are confined to negligence, not criminal intent. Custodial interrogation is unnecessary as evidence is documentary. Co-accused with graver allegations have been granted interim bail.
Respondent’s Position: The case involves large-scale forgery, destruction of records, and sacrilege over a prolonged period. The petitioner, as Secretary, had supervisory responsibility. The placement of scriptures in a "suspense account" and unauthorized printing of 61 scriptures in February 2020 indicate deliberate negligence and collusion. Custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the nexus and recover evidence.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent arrest in connection with FIR No. 168/2025.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail can be denied solely on the basis of allegations of negligence in a religious sentiment case, where there is no prima facie evidence of criminal intent, misappropriation, or active participation in the alleged offences, and where custodial interrogation appears unnecessary given the documentary nature of the evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner’s role was purely administrative and supervisory, with no direct involvement in the Printing Department. The allegations against him, even as per SGPC’s own inquiry, were limited to negligence, not criminal misconduct. The FIR was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly a decade without explanation. The complainant is a third party, not the SGPC, which had previously dismissed a similar complaint in 2021. The petitioner has clean antecedents, is willing to cooperate fully with the investigation, and no recovery or forensic evidence is expected from him. Co-accused facing more serious charges have already been granted interim bail. Custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor proportionate.
For the Respondent
The State, supported by the complainant’s counsel, contended that the petitioner, as Secretary, bore supervisory responsibility over the sacred saroops. The placement of 328 saroops in a "suspense account" and the unauthorized printing of 61 scriptures in 2020 indicate deliberate oversight and possible collusion. The destruction of records and fabrication of ledgers, as per the SGPC’s High-Level Enquiry Commission report dated 23.08.2020, point to a systemic cover-up. Given the gravity of the allegations involving religious sentiments and the potential for evidence tampering, custodial interrogation is essential. The delay in filing the FIR does not negate the seriousness of the offence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful review of the allegations, the petitioner’s role, and the nature of the evidence. It observed that while the FIR invokes serious sections including those relating to sacrilege and forgery, the factual allegations against the petitioner are not of active participation but of supervisory negligence. The Court emphasized that Section 482 of the BNSS permits anticipatory bail where arrest is not essential for investigation.
"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. Rather, the allegations are confined only to the negligence and not to any act of misappropriation or criminal intent."
The Court noted the inordinate delay of nearly a decade in registering the FIR, with no plausible explanation offered. It further highlighted that the complaint was not filed by the SGPC - the competent religious authority - but by a third party, despite the matter having been under SGPC’s internal review since 2016. The Court also observed that the evidence sought to be collected is largely documentary, including ledgers, bills, and internal reports, and does not require custodial interrogation for recovery or forensic analysis.
The Court distinguished this case from those involving active participation in forgery or sacrilege, noting that the petitioner had no connection with the Printing Department during the relevant period. It also took note of the fact that co-accused with more serious allegations had been granted interim bail, reinforcing the principle of parity. The Court found no material to suggest that the petitioner would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. He is directed to join the investigation within ten days from the date of judgment by appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when called. In the event of arrest, he shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing adequate personal or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The Court clarified that its observations are strictly for the purpose of this bail application and do not constitute any opinion on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Negligence Alone Is Insufficient for Custodial Arrest
- Practitioners must argue that allegations of administrative or supervisory negligence, without evidence of criminal intent or direct involvement, cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.
- Courts must distinguish between negligence and active complicity when evaluating the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Documentary Evidence Reduces Need for Arrest
- Where the investigation relies primarily on documents, ledgers, and internal reports, courts should prioritize non-custodial investigation methods.
- Petitioners should be directed to cooperate with investigation through summons rather than arrest, unless there is a credible risk of evidence destruction.
Delay and Third-Party Complaints Undermine Urgency
- Inordinate delay in filing FIR, especially in religious sentiment cases, must be scrutinized and may weigh in favour of bail.
- Complaints filed by third parties, rather than the competent institutional authority, may indicate ulterior motives and weaken the case for immediate arrest.
Parity Among Accused Is a Valid Consideration
- When co-accused facing graver allegations are granted bail, denial of bail to a petitioner with lesser or no direct involvement violates the principle of equal treatment under law.
- Courts must apply the doctrine of parity consistently, particularly in multi-accused cases.
