Patiala Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Judicial Officer in High-Profile Theft Case
A Patiala court has firmly rejected the anticipatory bail application of a serving judicial officer, Bikramdeep Singh, who stands accused of stealing gold, jewellery, and cash from the residence of a deceased additional sessions judge. The court emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation to advance the investigation.
Court Cites Supreme Court Rulings on Equality Before Law
In its detailed order, the court referenced Supreme Court precedents, asserting that no individual, regardless of rank or designation, is exempt from legal accountability. The court observed, "The offence alleged strikes at the integrity expected from a public servant, more particularly a judicial officer." This principle guided the decision to dismiss the bail plea, highlighting that the accused must face the penal consequences for any breach of criminal law.
Details of the Case and Allegations
The case originates from an FIR registered on March 21, 2026, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Bikramdeep Singh, a 39-year-old judicial officer, is alleged to have unlawfully entered the home of late additional district and sessions judge Kanwaljit Singh in Patiala. The incident reportedly occurred on the night of the judge's death in August 2025, with the accused and some co-accused removing valuable items.
According to the prosecution, CCTV footage from the deceased's residence captures the accused entering and exiting the premises with bags and boxes. This footage allegedly shows their movements during a period when the judge's body was still at the hospital and no immediate family members were present at the home.
Complaint and Prosecution's Arguments
The complaint was filed by Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk, a professor at Punjabi University and a close associate of the deceased, who acted under a power of attorney granted by the judge's son. The complainant alleged that the accused exploited the situation to remove ancestral gold, jewellery, and cash without proper authorization.
The prosecution argued that the CCTV evidence indicates the removal of valuables occurred before any documented communication with the deceased's son. Investigators also noted a lack of clear evidence supporting lawful possession or entrustment in the messages presented by the defence.
Defence Claims and Court's Rejection
In his bail plea, Bikramdeep Singh claimed innocence, contending that the FIR was false and malicious, filed after an unexplained delay of over seven months. He asserted close personal ties with the deceased and stated that he visited the house at the request of the judge's son to secure valuables. The defence cited WhatsApp communications and claimed that the items were later handed over to the family.
However, the court, presided over by Patiala additional sessions judge Harinder Sidhu, dismissed these arguments in its April 1 order. The court held that the facts and circumstances, including the gravity of allegations, prima facie material from CCTV footage, absence of convincing proof of lawful possession, and the need to recover substantial property, all suggest that granting anticipatory bail would adversely affect the investigation.
Conclusion and Implications
The court concluded that the material on record does not sufficiently support the petitioner's pleas to justify the protection of pre-arrest bail. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding integrity and ensuring that public servants, especially those within the legal system, are held to the highest standards of conduct. The case now proceeds with potential custodial interrogation as investigators seek to uncover the full truth behind these serious allegations.
