A court in Patiala district, Punjab, has denied anticipatory bail to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bikramdeep Singh. He faces allegations of theft and house trespass linked to the residence of a deceased judicial officer.
Additional Sessions Judge Harinder Sidhu passed the order on April 1. The Court noted the seriousness of the allegations. In particular, it said the case involves the alleged removal of a large quantity of gold and jewellery from the house of late Kanwaljit Singh, an Additional District & Sessions Judge.
Background
Police registered the FIR on March 21. Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk filed the complaint. He acts as power of attorney for Angadpal Singh, the son of the deceased judge.
According to the complaint, Kanwaljit Singh died on August 1, 2025, at Amar Hospital. Soon after, four individuals reached his residence in three vehicles. These included house help Amarjit Kaur alias Pinky, Gaurav Goel, and another person.
The complaint further states that Gaurav stayed outside. Meanwhile, the others entered the house. They searched the premises and allegedly removed gold, jewellery, and cash.
Defence
Bikramdeep Singh denied the allegations. He claimed that Angadpal Singh, who was in Canada, had asked him to secure the valuables. He also said that he later returned them when Angadpal visited India.
His counsel argued that the case was filed with mala fide intent. They said no receipt was prepared because the parties shared a close relationship. They also argued that, in such circumstances, no offence of trespass arose.
Prosecution
The prosecution, however, opposed the plea. It argued that the accused removed the valuables before informing the family. It also stated that recovery of the items is still pending.
Further, the State submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary. According to the prosecution, the investigation must uncover the full extent of the alleged act and recover the missing property.
Court’s Findings
The Court noted that CCTV footage shows Bikramdeep at the scene with co-accused persons. It also observed that the handling of the items appeared secretive.
The Court then examined the WhatsApp chats produced by the applicant. However, it found that they did not show any consent from the deceased’s son. It further noted that these messages came after the alleged removal of the items.
The Court also rejected the argument for special protection due to his judicial position. Instead, it clarified that such safeguards relate only to arrest procedure. They do not grant immunity from arrest.
Decision
The Court considered the seriousness of the allegations. It also noted the need to recover the property. At the same time, it found no material showing lawful possession of the valuables.
Accordingly, the Court held that granting anticipatory bail would affect the investigation. It therefore dismissed the application. At the same time, it clarified that its observations are limited to the bail stage.
Appearance
Advocates Anish Jain and Amit Jain appeared for Bikramdeep Singh.
Additional Public Prosecutor Charanjit Singh Bhullar represented the State.
Advocate HPS Verma appeared for the complainant.
