Allegations Confined To Negligence, Not Criminal Intent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ex-SGPC Secretary In Missing 'Saroops' Case

"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." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that departmental negligence in handling sacred scriptures cannot automatically be equated with criminal intent or misappropriation while granting anticipatory bail to a former Secretary of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC).

A bench of Justice Manisha Batra observed that the accusations against the retired official regarding the 328 missing sacred 'saroops' of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji pointed only to supervisory lapses rather than any deliberate sacrilege or financial fraud.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The dispute stemmed from a criminal case lodged by a representative of the Sikh Sadbhavna Dal, alleging that 328 sacred saroops under the custody of the SGPC went missing between 2011 and 2016. The complainant accused the petitioner, who was then serving as a Secretary with the SGPC, of criminal conspiracy, misappropriation, forgery, and hurting religious sentiments. Apprehending arrest after a local sessions court dismissed his bail application, the retired official approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

LEGAL ISSUES

The primary question before the court was whether administrative negligence by an SGPC official in the maintenance of records for sacred saroops could constitute the strict criminal offenses of misappropriation, forgery, and sacrilege under the Indian Penal Code and the Jagat Jot Shri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Act. The court was also called upon to determine if custodial interrogation was legally warranted for a retired official when the allegations were based entirely on institutional audit reports and documentary records.

COURT'S OBSERVATIONS

The court closely examined the findings of the SGPC's own High-Level Enquiry Commission and the subsequent departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It noted that while the petitioner had been compulsorily retired from his post, the internal findings merely pointed to supervisory failures regarding scriptures placed in a "suspense account" rather than any active criminality. The bench emphasized that the institutional records failed to demonstrate any deliberate act of disrespect or financial fraud committed by the retired official. "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," the court observed.

Inordinate delay in registration of the FIR and the locus of the complainant raised significant legal doubts.

Turning its attention to the chronology of the criminal proceedings, the High Court highlighted a glaring temporal gap between the alleged incidents and the police action. The bench found it legally troubling that while the alleged mismanagement occurred between 2011 and 2016, the FIR was registered nearly a decade later in December 2025 without any justifiable explanation. Furthermore, the court questioned why the SGPC, being the statutory body governing these religious affairs, never initiated criminal action itself. "Another significant aspect is that the FIR has not been 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," the bench noted.

"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."

Addressing the State's demand for custodial interrogation to unearth an alleged nexus and the forgery of ledgers, the court observed that the entirety of the investigation rested on official records, bills, and vouchers already available with the institution. Since the petitioner was a retired employee with no ongoing access to SGPC records, the bench reasoned that detaining him behind bars would serve no legitimate investigative purpose. The court clarified that the investigating officers could easily summon him to explain any documentary discrepancies. "In any case, 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 judgment read.

Absence of flight risk and willingness to cooperate justify pre-arrest bail.

Concluding its doctrinal analysis, the bench evaluated the petitioner's antecedents and his conduct since the registration of the case. The court pointed out that the retired official possessed an unblemished service record prior to this dispute and had expressed a clear willingness to cooperate with the ongoing police probe. Finding no evidence that he would tamper with institutional records or flee from justice, the court deemed it a fit case for extending the protection of pre-arrest bail. "There is nothing on record to suggest that in the event of being granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner would either tamper with the evidence or influence any witness," the court concluded.

The High Court allowed the petition, directing the former SGPC Secretary to join the investigation within ten days and granting him anticipatory bail in the event of arrest. The ruling underscores the established legal principle that mere departmental negligence cannot automatically be prosecuted as criminal misappropriation, particularly when FIRs are filed by third parties after an unexplained and inordinate delay.

Date of Decision: 27 March 2026