The Court of Sh. Harinder Sidhu, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, has dismissed the first anticipatory bail application of Bikramdeep Singh, a serving judicial officer, accused of committing theft of gold and jewellery from the residence of a deceased colleague. The court observed that the gravity of the allegations and the need for recovery of substantial property necessitated custodial interrogation, outweighing the petitioner’s plea for special protection as a judicial officer.
Background
The case originates from FIR No. 56, dated March 21, 2026, registered at Police Station Division No. 4 (Lahori Gate), Patiala, under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding to Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC).
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with a domestic helper and other associates, removed ancestral gold, jewellery, and cash from the residence of the late Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, an Additional District & Sessions Judge, on the night he passed away in a hospital. The complaint was filed by Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk, acting as the special power of attorney for the deceased’s son, Angadpal Singh.
CCTV footage reportedly showed the petitioner entering and exiting the premises with boxes and bags, accompanied by official gunmen, during a time when no family members were present.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Anish Jain and Sh. Amit Jain, advocates, argued that the FIR was “scandalous” and “concocted” to tarnish the image of the petitioner, whose family has a history of judicial service. They contended:
- Authorization: The petitioner claimed he acted out of “gratuitous behavior” and at the request of the deceased’s son, Angadpal Singh, to take family valuables into safe custody.
- Lack of Dishonest Intention: It was argued that if there were dishonest intent, the petitioner would not have gone personally, nor would he have been accompanied by gunmen or left the CCTV DVR intact.
- Handing Over of Goods: The petitioner claimed he handed over the belongings to Angadpal Singh on August 4, 2025, but did not take a receipt due to their close family relations.
- Judicial Immunity: Citing Delhi Judicial Service Association Vs. State of Gujarat (1991), the counsel argued that judicial officers are entitled to protection from arrest.
Arguments of the State
Sh. Charanjit Singh Bhullar, Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail, asserting:
- Contradictory Timeline: The CCTV footage showed the articles being removed by 9:50 PM, while the WhatsApp chats relied upon by the petitioner showed his first contact with the son only after 10:15 PM.
- Custodial Interrogation: The state argued that custodial interrogation is essential to “unearth the conspiracy” and recover the property involved in the theft.
- Deception: It was alleged that the petitioner actively discouraged the sons of the deceased from visiting their Patiala home by citing security concerns, effectively keeping them away from the scene.
Court’s Analysis
The court examined the principles for bail as laid down in Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab. Addressing the claim of judicial immunity, the court clarified:
“The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Delhi Judicial Service Association does not grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution or investigation. The safeguards relate to the manner of arrest and not to exemption from arrest where circumstances so warrant it… no person whatever his rank, or designation may be, is, above law and he must face the penal consequences of infraction of criminal law.”
Regarding the merits of the investigation, the court noted that the CCTV footage prima facie corroborated the petitioner’s presence at the scene in a “clandestine manner.” The court found that the WhatsApp chats did not explicitly disclose any authorization to remove valuables and that the articles were seemingly taken before the petitioner contacted the family.
The court further emphasized the effectiveness of custodial interrogation, quoting the Supreme Court in State represented by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma:
“Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented and effective than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under section 438 of the Code.”
Decision
The court concluded that granting anticipatory bail would “adversely affect the investigation” given the requirement to recover substantial property and the seriousness of the allegations.
Outcome: The anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Bikramdeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab
- Case Number: BA-1214-2026 (Registration No. 2213 of 2026)
- Court: Court of Harinder Sidhu, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala
- Date of Order: April 1, 2026
