news details |
|
|
| Court denies bail to Manjit Singh in Guru Granth Sahib arson case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 17: Additional Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samba, Kritika Sethi today rejected the bail application of Manjit Singh alias Billa, accused of desecrating multiple swaroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib in a gurdwara at Koulpur, terming him a threat to public peace and noting a strong prima facie case against him.
The bail plea was moved by Manjit Singh, son of Gurmukh Singh, resident of Koulpur, Tehsil Vijaypur, who has been booked in FIR registered at Police Station Ramgarh under Sections 298, 299, 326(g) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly destroying six swaroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and causing damage to the gurdwara building on the intervening night of October 7-8, 2025.
According to the police report, complainant Jasbir Singh, Sarpanch and member of the village committee, reported that the accused allegedly entered Gurdwara Koulpur at midnight, poured inflammable liquid over the sacred swaroops and AC installed in Sachkhand Sahib and set them on fire, after which he fled from the spot. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by SDPO Vijaypur was constituted by SSP Samba to investigate the case.
During investigation, the SIT is stated to have seized six burnt swaroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and samples of burnt residues, which were sent to FSL Jammu for chemical analysis. Police also claimed to have obtained CCTV footage from the gurdwara allegedly showing the accused entering the premises, sprinkling inflammable liquid and setting the swaroops on fire. The call detail record (CDR) of the accused is also stated to match the location of the place of occurrence at the relevant time.
The Investigating Officer informed the court that statements of witnesses under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) have been recorded, in which the identity of the accused has been verified. It also surfaced during investigation that the accused earlier had an altercation with the gurdwara committee after they reportedly declined his request to take Guru Granth Sahib to his house for a ceremony for his children, who are settled in Canada.
The prosecution, opposing the bail plea, argued that the offences are non-bailable, serious and heinous in nature and have deeply hurt the religious sentiments of the Sikh community, with potential to disturb law and order. It was further submitted that Manjit Singh has remained involved in a similar arson case registered at Police Station Chenani, Udhampur, and that a PSA dossier has already been recommended against him. The APP contended that if released on bail, the accused is likely to abscond, influence witnesses and endanger public order.
The Regional Passport Officer, Jammu, has also been requested by the police to impound the accused's passport so that he may not leave the country after securing bail.
On the other hand, the Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the applicant argued that Manjit Singh, being a follower of the Sikh faith, could not even conceive of desecrating Sri Guru Granth Sahib and has been falsely implicated. It was submitted that the person seen in the CCTV footage is masked and his identity cannot be conclusively attributed to the applicant. The defence further contended that the accused is a permanent resident of J&K and is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency.
After hearing both sides and perusing the case diary, the court held that there exists a strong prima facie case against the accused. Relying on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar vs Ashis Chatterjee and Neeru Yadav vs State of UP, the Magistrate observed that while personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee, it is not absolute and must be balanced with the interest of society and the State.
The court further noted that the bar contained in Section 480 of the BNSS is attracted, as one of the alleged offences - Section 326(g) BNS - is punishable with life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years. Given the nature of the allegations, previous involvement of the accused in similar offences and the potential impact on public peace and communal harmony, the court held that this was not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage.
Observing that granting bail to the accused would defeat larger public interest and may lead to public unrest, the court dismissed the bail application. It, however, clarified that the observations made in the order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail plea and shall not prejudice the merits of the trial. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
