[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 April, 2026
CRM-M-15934-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15934-2026 (O&M)
Amarjit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 07.04.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 08.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 08.04.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate (through VC) and
Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P. I. P. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab with
Mr. Durgesh Garg, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Pradeep Virk, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Amandeep Punia, Advocate
for the complainant.
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), is for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.168 dated 07.12.2025, registered
under Sections 295, 295-A, 408, 409, 465 and 120-B of IPC and Section 5 of
Jagat Jot Shri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Act, 2008 (Sections 466, 467, 468 and
CRM-M-15934-2026 (O&M) -2-
471 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Division-C, District Police
Commissionerate Amritsar.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the abovementioned FIR has been registered at the instance of
complainant Baldev Singh, representative of 'Sikh Sadbhavna Dal', alleging
therein that 328 sacred saroops (holy books) of 'Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji',
which were in the custody of 'Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee',
Sri Amritsar Sahib, were found missing in 2016. It is alleged that the petitioner
in connivance with other accused persons was involved in unauthorized
printing, distribution, disappearance and mishandling of sacred saroops,
misappropriation and commission of a fraud, worth Rs.9,82,700/-, with the
institution. It has also been alleged that evidence pertaining to abovementioned
acts has been destroyed and the religious sentiments of Sikh community have
been hurt. The abovesaid allegations are based upon the report of the fact-
finding/inquiry Committee constituted by the Shriomani Gurudwara
Prabandhak Committee (for short 'SGPC'), Sri Amritsar Sahib. After
registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated. During
the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner was working as
Sewadar with the SGPC. He did not maintain the record of the
destructed/cremated holy scriptures of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji with a mala
fide intention. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had filed an application
seeking concession of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amritsar but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated
19.01.2026.
CRM-M-15934-2026 (O&M) -3-
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He was running a private school. He was
not connected to SGPC in any manner and was only performing occasional
and voluntary services at Goindwal Sahib. He had volunteered to deliver a
status report to Ishar Singh Inquiry Committee only because Bhai Narinder
Singh had passed away and the regular Sewadar was not available at that time
and only due to that reason, he cannot be termed as official 'Sewadar'. Since
he was not holding any official post, the allegations levelled against him that
he failed to record the damaged scriptures in the year 2016 are baseless and
have no sanctity. The petitioner 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 of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The
petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the alleged misappropriation, which
is stated to have occurred during the period from the year 2011 to 2016, when
the petitioner had no connection of any kind with the Printing Department.
4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare
perusal of the FIR reveals that it is vague, devoid of particulars and does not
attribute any specific role to the petitioner. Moreover, the SGPC itself has
never alleged that the petitioner committed any offence as mentioned in the
FIR. An earlier complaint filed by Balwinder Singh, General Secretary of the
same association, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR on
identical allegations, had already been dismissed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, vide a detailed order dated 08.04.2021. There
is inordinate and unexplained delay in registration of the FIR. The petitioner
CRM-M-15934-2026 (O&M) -4-
has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. He is in Canada
since August, 2025 i.e. even before registration of the present FIR. He is ready
to join the investigation by returning to India. His custodial interrogation is not
required. No recovery is to be effected from him. No useful purpose would be
served by detaining him in custody. Co-accused Gurmukh Singh, Baj Singh
and Manjit Singh, against whom there are even graver allegations, have been
granted concession of interim anticipatory bail by this Court. On parity, the
petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. Hence, it is urged that the
petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel, assisted by learned Senior
counsel for the complainant, has argued that the present case involves serious
allegations of forgery, fabrication, tampering with evidence, destruction of
official records of SGPC and sacrilege/disrespect of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji
by senior officials and sewadars including the petitioner since 2013-14.
Reference is made to an incident dated 19.05.2016 at Gurudwara Ramsar,
Amritsar, where approximately 80 saroops were allegedly damaged in a fire.
Learned State counsel submits that an inquiry conducted by SGPC culminated
in a report dated 23.10.2018, which revealed large-scale forgery of records,
bills, ledgers, and vouchers, along with destruction of records and fabrication
of evidence by officials and senior management. However, no action was taken
against the persons involved, indicating a nexus between the culprits and
higher authorities. A High-Level Inquiry Commission was constituted by
SGPC in July, 2020, which submitted its report on 23.08.2020. The
Commission found that 328 saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji were
unaccounted for and were under the control of the co-accused and the
CRM-M-15934-2026 (O&M) -5-
petitioner, and recommended legal action. The petitioner was serving as
Sewadar in with the SGPC but he failed to maintain the record of the
destructed/cremated holy scriptures of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji with a mala
fide intention. In February, 2020, 61 scriptures were prepared in an
unauthorized manner from additional parts. He had failed to perform his duties
intentionally. The petitioner acted in collusion with co-accused in commission
of the offences. His custodial interrogation is required for conducting proper
investigation in the matter. It is, therefore, urged that the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. As per the allegations, 328 saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji
were accounted for during this period and the same were under the control of
the co-accused and the petitioner. The petitioner has been nominated as
accused on the allegations that he was working as Sewadar with the SGPC but
he, in connivance with the co-accused, did not maintain the record of the
destructed/damaged scriptures. However, the petitioner has taken a candid
stand that he was not an official Sewadar and had only performed as such
occasionally and voluntarily in the absence of regular/official Sewadar. This
disputed question of fact can only be decided after appreciating the evidence to
be produced on record during trial and no conclusive inference can be drawn at
this stage. However, on a perusal of the record, it is apparent that 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. It also
CRM-M-15934-2026 (O&M) -6-
emerges that 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.
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.
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. 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.
8. It is further noteworthy that 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 petitioner is stated to
have clean antecedents and has expressed his willingness to join the
investigation. Moreso, the abovenamed co-accused, against there were even
graver allegations, have already been granted concession of anticipatory bail
by this Court. The principle of parity also weighs in favour of the petitioner. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to join
the investigation within a period of 30 days from today by appearing before the
Investigating Officer or as and when called upon to do so and in the event of
CRM-M-15934-2026 (O&M) -7-
arrest, he shall be released on anticipatory bail subject to furnishing adequate
personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer
and subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
08.04.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
