Patiala Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Judicial Officer in High-Profile Theft Case
A Patiala court has firmly denied anticipatory bail to a serving judicial officer accused of stealing gold, jewellery, and cash from the residence of a deceased additional sessions judge. The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and underscored the necessity for custodial interrogation to advance the investigation.
Court Cites Supreme Court Rulings: No One Above the Law
In its ruling, the court referenced Supreme Court precedents, stating unequivocally that no individual, regardless of rank or designation, is exempt from the law. The court observed that the accused must face the penal consequences for any infraction of criminal law. "The offence alleged strikes at the integrity expected from a public servant, more particularly a judicial officer," the court noted while dismissing the plea.
Details of the Case and Allegations
Patiala Additional Sessions Judge Harinder Sidhu delivered the order, dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by Bikramdeep Singh, a 39-year-old judicial officer. Singh was named in an FIR registered on March 21, 2026, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The FIR alleges that Singh, along with some co-accused, unlawfully entered the home of the 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 allegedly 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 court held that the facts and circumstances of the case, including the gravity of the allegations, prima facie material in the form of CCTV footage, the absence of convincing evidence supporting lawful possession, and the requirement to recover substantial property, all indicate that granting anticipatory bail would adversely affect the investigation.
Defense Claims and Court's Rejection
In his bail plea, the petitioner judge claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was false and malicious and was filed after an unexplained delay of over seven months. He contended that he had close personal ties with the deceased and had visited the house at the request of the judge's son to 'secure valuables.' The defense also cited WhatsApp communications, asserting that the items were later handed over to the family.
However, the prosecution countered this by submitting that the CCTV footage shows the alleged removal of valuables occurred before any documented communication with the deceased's son. Investigators further claimed that no clear evidence of authorization or entrustment was found in the messages presented by the defense.
Court's Final Decision
After hearing both parties, the court, in its order dated April 1, dismissed the bail plea. It observed that the material on record does not support the pleas taken by the petitioner sufficiently to justify the protection of a pre-arrest bail. This decision reinforces the principle that judicial officers, like all public servants, must uphold the highest standards of integrity and are subject to the full force of the law when allegations of misconduct arise.
