A court in Patiala district of Punjab has denied anticipatory bail to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bikramdeep Singh, who has been accused of theft and house trespass..According to a police case registered last month, Bikramdeep and others allegedly stole gold and jewellery last year from the residence of Additional District & Sessions Judge Kanwaljit Singh on the night he died at a hospital.Additional Sessions Judge Harinder Sidhu on April 1 denied bail to Bikramdeep on the ground that the allegations are of a serious nature, involving removal of a substantial quantity of gold and jewellery from the residence of a deceased colleague under suspicious circumstances."The offence alleged strikes at the integrity, expected from a public servant more particularly a judicial officer. Although it is alleged that the FIR has been got registered with a mala fide intention after a delay of 7 months but the investigation file would reveal that an application had been moved by the complainant to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range which was marked to the Superintendent of Police for inquiry into the matter. The CCTV footages in the pendrive, available with the record of investigation shows the bail applicant entering and exiting the premises with his co-accused, carrying certain boxes and bags," the Court said..The police had on March 21 registered a criminal case on the complaint of Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk - the power of attorney of Angadpal Singh, the son of deceased judge Kanwaljit Singh. Virk is a a professor in the Department of Law at Punjabi University Patiala.In the complaint, Virk 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 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.On April 1, his counsel argued that the case was registered only to tarnish his image. No formal receipt of handing over of the belongings was taken since they shared family relations, it was submitted."There was no question of any criminal trespass since the petitioner/bail applicant shared friendly, family relations with the deceased who had been treating the petitioner as a family member from their posting together at district Ludhiana," the Court was told.However, the prosecution argued that articles were taken away much before Bikramdeep contacted the sons of the deceased. It was also submitted that recovery of the case property was yet to be made and that custodial interrogation would be required to unearth the conspiracy and to trace the property..Considering the submissions, the Court noted that the CCTV footage prima facie corroborated Bikramdeep's presence at the scene along with the co-accused."The body language of the people in the CCTV footage including that of the petitioner and the manner in which the articles are being taken away prima facie shows that the act is being done in a clandestine manner," it added.The Court also said that the WhatsApp chats relied upon by Bikramdeep do not disclose any consent or authorisation by the son of the deceased for removal of the valuables from their house."The WhatsApp chats Annexure-3 with the bail application merely reflect general communication regarding the arrival of Angadpal Singh in India and his emotional state. In fact the time in these WhatsApp chats and voice calls and video calls is post 10:15 PM whereas the CCTV footages are till 9:50 PM which is much prior to the communication with the said Angadpal Singh son of deceased, prima facie revealing that the articles were taken away prior to the contact of the petitioner with Angadpal Singh," the Court added.Thus, the Court said that the material on record was not sufficient to justify pre-arrest bail. The Court also refused to accept the contention that Bikramdeep as a judicial officer was entitled to any special protection."The safeguards relate to the manner of arrest and not to exemption from arrest where circumstances so warrant it, rather the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that no person whatever his rank, or designation may be, is, above law and he must face the penal consequences of infraction of criminal law," it said..Considering the gravity of the allegations, prima facie material in the form of CCTV footage, the absence of convincing material supporting lawful possession and the requirement of recovery of substantial property, the Court said the grant of anticipatory bail would adversely affect the investigation."In view of the foregoing discussion, this court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the bail applicant. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Observations made herein are strictly for disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression," it ordered..Advocates Anish Jain and Amit Jain represented Bikramdeep Singh.Additional Public Prosecutor Charanjit Singh Bhullar represented the State.Advocate HPS Verma represented the complainant. [Read Order]
