Serving Judicial Officer's Anticipatory Bail Denied in Theft From Deceased Judge's Home: "No Person, Whatever His Rank, Is Above Law"

In a case that has sent shockwaves through Punjab's judicial community, a serving judicial officer has been denied anticipatory bail in connection with the alleged removal of gold, jewellery and cash from the residence of a deceased Additional District and Sessions Judge on the very night his colleague lay dead in a hospital. The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, Harinder Sidhu, dismissed the anticipatory bail application on April 1, 2026, holding that CCTV footage prima facie established clandestine conduct, that the WhatsApp chats relied upon by the petitioner did not disclose any authorisation to remove valuables, and that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the full conspiracy and effect recovery of the stolen property.

The case has its origins in the death of Kanwaljit Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge posted at Sangrur, who passed away on August 1, 2025 at Amar Hospital, Patiala. On that very night, while the deceased judge's body lay in the hospital and his two sons were abroad in Canada, CCTV cameras installed at his residence at House No. 74C, Vikas Colony, Patiala captured a disturbing sequence of events: at around 8:46 p.m., a group of persons — including Amarjot Kaur alias Pinky, the domestic help of the deceased, one Gaurav Goel, a government officer posted with the deceased, and unknown others — arrived at the house in three cars. Three of them entered the residence and were filmed searching through it and removing ancestral gold, jewellery and cash.

The bail petitioner, Bikramdeep Singh, aged 39 years, is a serving judicial officer whose father and grandfather are also retired judicial officers. He was later identified as one of those persons captured in the CCTV footage entering and exiting the premises with co-accused, carrying boxes and bags. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk, a Law Professor at Punjabi University Patiala who held the special power of attorney of Angadpal Singh, elder son of the deceased, granted on August 16, 2025. FIR No. 56 dated March 21, 2026 was registered at Police Station Division No. 4 (Lahori Gate), Patiala under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — corresponding to Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC — for lurking house trespass by night and theft. Co-accused Amarjot Kaur and Gaurav Goyal had already been arrested. Their interrogation reportedly revealed that the articles removed were with the petitioner. The petitioner then sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The principal questions before the court were: whether the petitioner's version — that he had entered the deceased's house at the request of the deceased's son to safeguard valuables — was supported by the material on record; whether a serving judicial officer was entitled to any special immunity or protection from arrest; and whether, in the facts and circumstances, anticipatory bail should be granted or whether custodial interrogation was required for effective investigation.

On the Defence Version and the WhatsApp Chats

The petitioner's defence was built around the claim of good faith. He argued that upon learning of his close friend and colleague's death, he rushed to the hospital. Since no family member was present, he contacted the deceased's son Angadpal Singh in Canada to express condolences. Angadpal Singh allegedly asked him to visit the house and take the valuables into safe custody, with the domestic help Amarjot Kaur assisting him. The petitioner relied on WhatsApp chat screenshots (Annexure-3) to substantiate ongoing communication with the son, and stated that he had subsequently handed over all collected belongings to Angadpal Singh on August 4, 2025, when the latter visited India and stayed at the petitioner's house. He further argued that had he harboured dishonest intent, he would not have gone personally, would not have been accompanied by the deceased's own gunmen, would not have remained on call throughout his stay, and most importantly, would have taken away the DVR of the CCTV cameras.

The court examined this defence against the CCTV timeline and found it materially inconsistent. The prosecution pointed out that the CCTV footage showed articles being removed by 9:50 p.m., whereas the first voice call in the WhatsApp chats relied upon by the petitioner was at 10:17 p.m. and the video call at 10:52 p.m. — meaning the valuables had been removed before any communication with Angadpal Singh took place. "The articles were taken away much before the petitioner Bikramdeep Singh contacted the sons of the deceased," the court recorded, finding this a critical inconsistency in the petitioner's narrative.

The court further held that the WhatsApp chats themselves did not support the defence: "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." There was nothing in the chats disclosing any entrustment or authorisation to remove valuables from the house. The statements of both sons of the deceased on the investigation file also contradicted the petitioner's claim. The prosecution additionally pointed out that the petitioner had allegedly advised the sons of the deceased not to come to their Patiala house citing security reasons — a circumstance suggesting deliberate exclusion of the family.

On the CCTV Footage and Prima Facie Case

The court placed considerable weight on the CCTV footage. It held that the footage prima facie corroborated the presence of the petitioner at the scene along with his co-accused at the relevant time, showing him entering and exiting with boxes and bags. "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."

On the Claim of Special Immunity for Judicial Officers

One of the most significant legal contentions advanced by the petitioner was that the Supreme Court's guidelines in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 2176, provided immunity to judicial officers from arrest, and that the police were not adhering to those guidelines.

The court firmly and clearly rejected this contention. It held that the Supreme Court's guidelines in that case protect judicial officers from arbitrary or humiliating arrest and prescribe the manner of arrest — they do not confer absolute immunity from criminal prosecution or investigation. "No person whatever his rank, or designation may be, is above law and he must face the penal consequences of infraction of criminal law. A Magistrate, Judge or any other Judicial Officer is liable to criminal prosecution for an offence like any other citizen." The court acknowledged that the guidelines exist because of the paramount necessity of preserving judicial independence, but held they cannot be invoked to shield a judicial officer where circumstances warrant arrest.

On Custodial Interrogation and the Requirement of Effective Investigation

The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State represented by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, which held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented and effective than questioning a suspect who is protected by an anticipatory bail order, and that such protection should not be granted where it would impede effective investigation. The court noted that recovery of a substantial quantity of gold and jewellery was yet to be effected, the full conspiracy remained to be unearthed, and co-accused persons had already been arrested whose interrogation had pointed to the petitioner.

Dismissal of the Application

Holding that the gravity of the allegations, the 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 all militated against grant of anticipatory bail, the court dismissed the application. "The offence alleged strikes at the integrity expected from a public servant, more particularly a judicial officer." The court clarified that its observations were strictly for the purpose of disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: April 1, 2026