Punjab court again refuses to close case against judge accused of stealing jewellery from another judge's house

A court in Punjab has once again refused to accept a cancellation report filed by the Punjab Police for closing a case that accuses judge Bikramdeep Singh and others of committing theft at the residence of another judge last year.

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Prabha Prashar said the allegations require a thorough, impartial and complete investigation but the probe conducted so far leaves several material questions unanswered.

Therefore, the Court directed the police to look into CCTV footage from the day of incident and also examine the relevant call detail records of the judge.

Further, it said that all electronic evidence relied upon, including the alleged email affidavits, screenshots and other supporting material, be placed on record.

"The Investigating Officer shall conduct further investigation strictly in accordance with law and submit a fresh report after complying with the above directions," the Court ordered.

In the case registered at Lahori Gate Police Station in Patiala on March 21, civil judge Bikramdeep Singh and others were accused of allegedly stealing gold and jewellery last year from the residence of Additional District & Sessions Judge Kanwaljit Singh on the night he died at a hospital.

The police registered the criminal case on a complaint by Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk, who was given power of attorney by the deceased judge's son. Virk is a professor in the Department of Law at Punjabi University Patiala.

In the complaint, Virk had said that after his friend Kanwaljit Singh passed away at Amar Hospital on August 1, 2025, his house help Amarjit Kaur alias Pinky, one Gaurav Goel, a government officer and " an unknown person" came in three cars to the deceased judge's residence.

"Out of these four people, Gaurav stayed outside, and the remaining three went inside the house and started rummaging through the house of my friend Late Kanwaljit Singh, Additional District Judge, Sangrur. At that time, these three people, after searching my friend's house, took away ancestral gold, jewellery, and cash from the house," the complaint alleged.

Bikramdeep Singh denied the allegations, stating that he had been asked by Kanwaljit Singh's son Angadpal Singh, who was then in Canada, to secure the valuables immediately. Bikramdeep also claimed that he later returned the valuables when Angadpal Singh stayed at his residence.

A court in Patiala in April denied anticipatory bail to judge Bikramdeep Singh. Soon thereafter, the Punjab and Haryana High Court transferred Bikramdeep Singh from Patiala district court to Tarn Taran.

In a twist, the complainant in a supplementary statement on April 16 told the police that the missing articles and cash were found in the house itself. The complainant also said the FIR was a result of a misunderstanding.

Considering the complainant's statement, the police decided to close the matter by filing a cancellation report after the complainant said no theft had taken place.

On April 29, judge Prashar declined to accept the report, observing that there were significant deficiencies in the investigation.

The police then conducted further investigation in the case but again decide to file a cancellation report.

In an order passed on July 10, the Court noted that the investigating material relied upon to file the second cancellation report was not sufficient to answer the deficiencies pointed out by it in April order.

It said the police has failed to probe what articles were actually removed from the house and then returned to judge Kanwaljit Singh's family. It also said that the application filed by judge Bikramdeep's father to the police to clarify the factual position was not sufficient to close the case.

"The Investigating Officer was required to independently verify the facts stated therein instead of merely relying on the contents of the application," it added.

Further, the Court said the police again had failed to record the statements of Kanwaljit Singh's sons and continued to rely on their alleged affidavits.

"Mere reliance upon affidavits transmitted through e-mail cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be regarded as a substitute for recording the statements of the actual legal heirs, particularly when they alone are competent to clarify whether any theft had in fact taken place, whether the articles allegedly removed from the house were subsequently received by them, and whether they had authorized any person to remove the said articles," the Court said.

The Court further said that there is no explanation regarding the role of other accused who are also seen entering the subject premises in the CCTV footage.

Further, it noted that since judge Bikramdeep Singh was allegedly talking to Angadpal Singh while removing articles from the house, the police was required to verify the contents of the conversion and obtain the relevant call detail records.

Nothing as such was done by the investigating officer, the judge said.

"The offences alleged under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are non-compoundable in nature and cannot be permitted to be closed merely because the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the matter," the Court said, while rejecting the second cancellation report.

The Court asked the police to further investigate the following aspects:

i) To ascertain and specifically identify the articles carried away in the bags as reflected in the CCTV footage;

ii) To prepare a complete inventory of such articles and correlate the same with the articles allegedly delivered to the legal heirs i.e. sons of the deceased;

iii) To investigate and mention the exact date, place and manner in which each article was handed over to the sons of the deceased and to collect supporting documentary evidence, including acknowledgment or receipt, if any;

iv) To verify the alleged telephonic conversation between accused Bikramdeep Singh and Angadpal Singh by collecting the relevant call detail records, electronic records and, if available, the recording, transcript etc. relating to such conversation;

v) To ascertain whether any authorization or consent was in fact given by Angadpal Singh or any other legal heir for removal of the articles from the house by recording the statements of Angadpal Singh and Arjanpal Singh in accordance with law, either in person or through video conferencing;

vi) To investigate the individual role of each person seen entering and exiting the house in the CCTV footage, including Amarjot Kaur alias Pinki, Gaurav Goel and Bikramdeep Singh;

vii) To place on record all electronic evidence relied upon, including the alleged email affidavits, screenshots and other supporting material.

Additional Public Prosecutor Jatinderpal Singh Sharma represented the State.

Advocate Navdeep Sharma appeared for the complainant.

[Read Order]