Punjab court denies anticipatory bail to civil judge in alleged theft at deceased colleague’s house

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on the complaint of Dr Bhupinder Singh Virk, a law professor at Punjabi University, Patiala, who holds a special power of attorney from Angadpal Singh, the elder son of the late judge, who was in Canada at the time.

Court’s key observations

Dismissing the bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the court held that the allegations against a serving judicial officer are “serious” and strike at the “integrity expected from a public servant, more particularly a judicial officer.”

The judge noted that the CCTV footage prima facie corroborates the petitioner’s presence and participation. The court observed that the “body language… and the manner in which the articles are being taken away prima facie shows that the act is being done in a clandestine manner.”

Crucially, the court found that WhatsApp chats and calls cited by the petitioner to claim authorisation from Angadpal Singh took place after the alleged theft. The footage shows activity until around 9.50 pm, while the first communication cited by the defence was at 10.17 pm. The court ruled that these messages only reflect general condolences and do not indicate any prior consent or authorisation to remove the valuables.

The court rejected the defence argument of delay in lodging the FIR, noting that the complainant had earlier approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police seeking an inquiry.

On the plea that Bikramdeep Singh, being a judicial officer, deserved special protection, the court said no person, regardless of rank or designation, is above the law. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Delhi Judicial Service Association vs State of Gujarat (1991), the court clarified that the guidelines protect against arbitrary arrest but do not grant absolute immunity from prosecution or investigation.

Emphasising the need for custodial interrogation, the court observed that substantial case property remains unrecovered and that interrogation is necessary to unearth the full conspiracy and trace the stolen items. It cited Supreme Court precedents underscoring that anticipatory bail should not impede effective investigation, especially in cases involving grave allegations at an initial stage.

Defence arguments

Advocates Anish Jain and Amit Jain, representing Bikramdeep Singh, argued that the FIR was false and motivated, filed with mala fide intent to tarnish the image of a judicial officer whose father and grandfather were retired judges. They claimed the petitioner acted in good faith at the request of Angadpal Singh due to their close, family-like relationship and had handed over the belongings when the son visited India. The defence highlighted the absence of any formal receipt as evidence of the personal trust between the parties.

The court clarified that its observations are limited to the bail proceedings and will not influence the merits of the case.