Chandigarh: A Patiala court has denied anticipatory bail to a serving judicial officer accused of stealing gold, jewellery and cash from the residence of an additional sessions judge, now deceased, observing the seriousness of allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.Quoting Supreme Court rulings in such matters, the court observed that no person, whatever his rank or designation, is above the law and he must face the penal consequences of infraction of criminal law.“The offence alleged strikes at the integrity expected from a public servant, more particularly a judicial officer,” the court observed while dismissing the plea.The court held that the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of allegations, prima facie material in the form of CCTV footage, absence of convincing material supporting lawful possession and the requirement of recovery of substantial property suggest that grant of anticipatory bail would adversely affect the investigation.Patiala additional sessions judge Harinder Sidhu passed these orders while dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by Bikramdeep Singh, a 39-year-old judicial officer, who was named in an FIR registered on March 21, 2026, under BNS. The FIR alleges that Singh, along with some co-accused, unlawfully entered the home of late additional district and sessions judge Kanwaljit Singh in Patiala and removed valuable items on the night of his death in Aug 2025.According to the prosecution, CCTV footage from the deceased’s residence shows the accused entering and exiting the premises with bags and boxes. The footage allegedly captures their movements during a time when the judge’s body was still in the hospital and no immediate family members were present.The complaint was filed by Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk, a professor at Punjabi University and a close associate of the deceased, acting under a power of attorney granted by the judge’s son. The complainant alleged that the accused took advantage of the situation to remove ancestral gold, jewellery, and cash without authorization.The petitioner judge claimed innocence, and contended in his bail plea that the FIR was false and malicious and was filed after an unexplained delay of over seven months. It was further contended that the petitioner had close personal ties with the deceased and had visited the house at the request of the judge’s son to ‘secure valuables’. They also cited WhatsApp communications and claimed that the items were later handed over to the family.On this, the prosecution submitted that CCTV footage shows the alleged removal of valuables occurred before any documented communication with the deceased’s son. Investigators also claimed that no clear evidence of authorization or entrustment was found in the messages presented by the defence.After hearing both the parties, the court, in its April 1 order, dismissed the bail plea, observing that 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.
