Police file FIR against 16 in connection with 328 missing Guru Granth Sahib saroops

The police on Sunday registered an FIR against 16 persons in connection with the 328 missing saroops of Guru Granth Sahib. The case was registered on a complaint filed by Gurlal Singh.

Those booked are Roop Singh, Manjit Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Satinder Singh, Nishan Singh, Paramjit Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Jujhar Singh, Baaj Singh, Dalbir Singh, Kamaljit Singh, Kulwant Singh, Jaspreet Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Satinder Singh and Amarjit Singh.

The Sikh Sadbhawna Dal, led by Baldev Singh Wadala, along with several Sikh and farmer organisations, has been spearheading a protest on Heritage Street, which leads to the Golden Temple, for the past five years, seeking a fair probe into the missing saroops.

Kultar Singh Sandhwan, Speaker of the Punjab Assembly, Education Minister Harjot Singh Bains and AAP MLA Inderbir Singh Nijjar went to the protest site, where a mahapanchayat had been called, and handed over a copy of the FIR to the protesters.

The complainant has alleged that “sacrilege of saroops and violation of religious norms” have been taking place for years.

According to the complaint, the sacrilege activities occurred from May 19, 2016, onwards.

The FIR states that some people kept tampering with documents related to “sacred religious articles”. The police registered the FIR after prima facie verification by ASI Tarlochan Singh.

A copy of the FIR was sent to the court within hours of its registration. The investigation of the case was handed over to the Gilwali Gate police post.

The development drew a sharp reaction from the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), which accused the AAP-run state government of interfering in Sikh religious affairs and fomenting trouble.

SGPC president Harjinder Singh Dhami sought the intervention of Akal Takht officiating jathedar Kuldip Singh Gargaj in the matter.

He said the matter of 328 saroops was investigated by the Akal Takht and departmental action was taken. He said the report had categorically stated that the matter was not about sacrilege but about misappropriation of money by some employees.