On April 1, Additional Sessions Judge Harinder Sidhu of Patiala issued a strong ruling, rejecting the anticipatory bail application of Bikramdeep Singh, a 39-year-old Civil Judge (Junior Division). He is accused of planning the theft of gold, jewelry, and cash from the home of his late colleague, Kanwaljit Singh.<\/p>\n
This case originated from FIR No. 56, filed on March 21, 2026, at Police Station Division No. 4 (Lahori Gate) in Patiala under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The allegations are linked to events that transpired on the night of August 1, 2025, when Judge Kanwaljit Singh passed away at Amar Hospital in Patiala.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors claim that Bikramdeep Singh, in collusion with Kanwaljit Singh\u2019s domestic aide Amarjot Kaur, also known as Pinky, a government official named Gaurav Goel, and another unidentified individual, entered House No. 74C in Vikas Colony, Patiala. They allegedly made off with valuables while the judge\u2019s body was still at the hospital. Surveillance footage purportedly captures the petitioner and a co-conspirator entering and leaving the property with boxes and bags, while Goel remained outside.<\/p>\n
The FIR was filed by Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk, a law professor at Punjabi University, Patiala. He acted on behalf of Angadpal Singh, the late judge’s eldest son, who was in Canada at the time.<\/p>\n
In its ruling, the court highlighted the gravity of the charges against a serving judicial officer, emphasizing the significant breach of integrity expected from someone in such a public role. The judge noted that the available CCTV footage appears to support the claims of the petitioner\u2019s involvement, with the manner in which the valuables were taken suggesting a secretive approach.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the court pointed out that WhatsApp messages and calls presented by the petitioner to demonstrate authorization from Angadpal Singh occurred after the alleged theft took place. The footage indicated activity at the property until approximately 9:50 PM, whereas the defense’s first cited communication was at 10:17 PM. The court concluded that these communications merely expressed condolences and did not provide evidence of prior permission to take the items.<\/p>\n
The court dismissed the defense’s argument regarding the delay in filing the FIR, noting that the complainant had previously sought an inquiry from the Deputy Inspector General of Police.<\/p>\n
Regarding the plea for special protection due to Bikramdeep Singh’s position as a judicial officer, the court stated that no individual is above the law, regardless of their status. It referenced a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat (1991) to clarify that while guidelines exist to protect against arbitrary arrests, they do not provide immunity from prosecution or investigation.<\/p>\n
The court stressed the importance of custodial interrogation, as significant portions of the stolen property remain missing. It underscored the necessity of further questioning to uncover the conspiracy and locate the stolen items, citing Supreme Court precedents that indicate anticipatory bail should not obstruct effective investigations, particularly in serious cases at an early stage.<\/p>\n
Bikramdeep Singh\u2019s attorneys, Anish Jain and Amit Jain, contended that the FIR was baseless and motivated by malicious intent to damage the reputation of a judicial officer with a family legacy of judicial service. They argued that Singh acted in good faith at Angadpal Singh\u2019s request, due to their close familial bond, and that the belongings were surrendered when Angadpal visited India. The defense also noted the lack of a formal receipt to substantiate the personal trust between the involved parties.<\/p>\n
The court clarified that its comments pertain solely to the bail proceedings and do not influence the substantive aspects of the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On April 1, Additional Sessions Judge Harinder Sidhu of Patiala issued a strong ruling, rejecting the anticipatory bail application of Bikramdeep Singh, a 39-year-old Civil Judge (Junior Division). He is accused of planning the theft of gold, jewelry, and cash from the home of his late colleague, Kanwaljit Singh. This case originated from FIR No. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2856,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[40,155],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-india","category-legal"],"yoast_head":"\n