NEW DELHI, Apr 4: A court in Punjab’s Patiala district has denied anticipatory bail to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bikramdeep Singh, who is facing allegations of theft and house trespass linked to the residence of a deceased judicial officer.
Additional Sessions Judge Harinder Sidhu, while rejecting the plea on April 1, observed that the allegations were serious in nature and involved the alleged removal of gold and jewellery from the house of Additional District and Sessions Judge Kanwaljit Singh on the night of his death.
The court noted that the accusations “strike at the integrity expected from a public servant, more particularly a judicial officer,” and said the material on record did not justify granting pre-arrest bail.
According to the prosecution, a case was registered on March 21 based on a complaint filed by Dr Bhupinder Singh Virk, power of attorney holder of Angadpal Singh, the son of the deceased judge. The complaint alleged that valuables, including ancestral gold, jewellery and cash, were taken from the residence shortly after Kanwaljit Singh passed away at a hospital on August 1, 2025.
The court relied on CCTV footage placed on record, which prima facie showed the presence of the accused along with co-accused at the scene, allegedly carrying boxes and bags. It observed that the manner in which the articles were removed appeared “clandestine.”
Rejecting the defence argument that the accused had acted on the instructions of the deceased’s son, the court said the WhatsApp chats cited did not indicate any clear consent or authorisation. It further noted that the timing of the communication was subsequent to the alleged removal of items, weakening the defence claim.
The prosecution also argued that recovery of the stolen property was yet to be made and custodial interrogation was necessary to establish the conspiracy and trace the valuables.
The court dismissed the contention that the accused, being a judicial officer, was entitled to special protection, observing that no individual is above the law.
“In view of the gravity of allegations, prima facie evidence and the requirement of recovery, this court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail,” the order stated, dismissing the application.
