Patiala Court denies bail to Sitting Punjab Judge accused of Looting Gold from deceased Judge’s Residence

In a case that has sent shockwaves through Punjab's judicial circles, the Additional Sessions Court at Patiala has taken up the deeply troubling matter of a sitting judicial officer allegedly exploiting the death of a fellow judge to loot gold, jewellery, and cash from his home, and the court's scrutiny of whether the accused deserves the protection of anticipatory bail promises a finding with profound implications for judicial accountability.

The controversy began on the night of August 1, 2025, when Additional District & Sessions Judge Kanwaljit Singh lay dead at Amar Hospital, Patiala, his family thousands of miles away in Canada. According to the prosecution, petitioner Bikramdeep Singh, himself a serving judicial officer, allegedly used that window of grief and absence to enter the deceased's residence at House No. 74-C, Vikas Colony, Patiala, accompanied by co-accused Amarjot Kaur (a domestic helper), Gaurav Goel (a government officer), and others, removing boxes and bags of valuables captured on the home's CCTV cameras.

The complainant, Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk, acting under a power of attorney granted by the deceased's son Angadpal Singh, an advocate settled in Canada, filed an FIR on March 21, 2026, over seven months later, under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. When Bikramdeep Singh approached the court seeking anticipatory bail, his counsel mounted a spirited defence: that he had entered the house at Angadpal Singh's own request, that he had remained on a video call throughout, that he had handed over all articles to Angadpal when the latter visited India, and that the delayed FIR was a malicious attempt to destroy a judicial officer's reputation.

The defence also invoked the Supreme Court's landmark Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, arguing that judicial officers are entitled to special protections from arrest. The prosecution fired back, pointing to a critical timeline discrepancy, CCTV footage shows the valuables being removed by 9:50 PM, while the first WhatsApp call between the petitioner and Angadpal Singh only appears at 10:17 PM, demolishing the petitioner's claim that he acted on prior authorisation.

ASJ Harinder Sidhu was unconvinced by the petitioner's narrative, finding that the CCTV footage "prima facie corroborates the presence of the petitioner Bikramdeep Singh at the scene alongwith the co-accused at the relevant time" and that "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." The Court flatly rejected the shield of judicial immunity, observing that the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Delhi Judicial Service case "do not grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution or investigation" and that "no person whatever his rank, or designation may be, is above law."

On the question of custodial interrogation, a key battleground, the court relied on State (CBI) v. Anil Sharma  to hold that pre-arrest bail "would impede effective investigation," particularly since co-accused have allegedly already disclosed that stolen articles remain with the petitioner and recovery is still pending. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Case Title: Bikramdeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Case No.: BA-1214-2026

Coram: Additional Sessions Judge, Sh. Harinder Sidhu

Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Anish Jain, Amit Jain

Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Charanjit Singh Bhullar (Additional Public Prosecutor), HPS Verma