A Patiala Sessions court in Punjab has denied anticipatory bail to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bikramdeep Singh, accused of trespassing and stealing gold jewellery from the residence of his deceased colleague, Additional District & Sessions Judge Kanwaljit Singh.
Additional Sessions Judge Harinder Sidhu dismissed the anticipatory bail plea to Judge Bikramdeep Singh of Patiala District Court on 1st April, citing the serious nature of the allegations against him. “Examining the factual matrix and circumstances of the present case in the light of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is found that the allegations against the petitioner/bail applicant Bikramdeep Singh, who is a serving judicial officer are of a serious nature; involving removal of a substantial quantity of gold and jewellery from the residence of a deceased colleague under suspicious circumstances,” the Additional Sessions Judge said.
The prosecution alleged that Bikramdeep Singh, in conspiracy with the domestic help who had access to the house of the deceased judge, removed gold jewellery and other valuables from his residence on the night of August 8, 2025, when Judge Kanwaljit Singh passed away in the hospital. An FIR was filed against the judge on March 21, 2026, at the police station Division no.4 (Lahori Gate), Patiala, under Sections 331(4), 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Dr Bhupinder Singh Virk, the power of attorney holder of Angadpal Singh, son of the deceased judge.
The accused refuted the allegations and said that he was asked to remove the gold jewellery from the house of the deceased by his son, Angadpal Singh, who was in Canada. He added that he had family relations with the deceased and his family, and therefore, Angadpal Singh requested him to take the family valuables into safe custody after the death of his father. Bikramjeet Singh said that he handed over the valuables to Angadpal Singh on August 4, 2025. However, the civil judge failed to produce any evidence to back his claim.
The Sessions Court noted that the CCTV camera footage of the residence captured the movement of the petitioner (Bikramdeep Singh) and the domestic help. The court added that it was clear from the body language of the petitioner and the manner in which the articles were taken away that the entire act was done clandestinely.
“The offence alleged strikes at the integrity expected from a public servant, more particularly a judicial officer,” the Court said, adding, “…the material on the record does not support the pleas taken up by the petitioner, sufficient to justify the protection of a pre-arrest bail.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that, being a judicial officer, he was entitled to special protection and immunity. The court clarified that there is no absolute immunity from criminal prosecution or investigation. “A Magistrate, Judge or any other Judicial Officer is liable to criminal prosecution for an offence like any other citizen, but in view of the paramount necessity of preserving the independence of the judiciary, the guidelines have been issued,” the court stated.
“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the gravity of the allegations, the prima facie material in the form of CCTV footage, the absence of convincing material supporting lawful possession, the requirement of recovery of substantial property, this court is of the view that the grant of anticipatory bail would adversely affect the investigation,” the court held.
