Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
District Court Patiala: While considering a bail application of a serving Civil Judge (Junior Division), accused of theft of ancestral gold, jewellery, and cash from the residence of his deceased colleague Kanwaljit Singh, the Single Judge Bench of Harinder Sidhu, J., dismissed the anticipatory bail and held the allegations to be serious and the CCTV footage prima facie supported the prosecution case making the custodial interrogation necessary for recovery of the property and for effective investigation.
Background
The petitioner, a serving judicial officer sought anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 331(4) and 305, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It was alleged that the petitioner in a conspiracy with the peon/maid, and having access to the house of Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Additional District & Sessions Judge (deceased), removed gold jewellery and cash from residence of the deceased, on the night when he had expired in the hospital.
The prosecution relied upon CCTV footage from the deceased’s house, which showed the petitioner entering and exiting the premises along with co-accused and carrying bags and boxes. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Dr Bhupinder Singh Virk, the attorney of the deceased’s son, Angadpal Singh.
Analysis and decision
Noting the primary issue for consideration as, “whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail in the light of the nature of allegations and the material collected during investigation”, the Court opined that the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. It also reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly, as held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565.
The Court found the allegations against the petitioner to be of serious nature and opined that the offence alleged strikes at the integrity, expected from a public servant more particularly a judicial officer. At the outset, the Court examined the evidence and observed that the CCTV footage corroborated the petitioner’s presence at the scene along with co-accused and showed the removal of articles in a clandestine manner. It was also found that the WhatsApp chats relied upon by the petitioner did not indicate any consent or authorisation from the deceased’s son to remove valuables, and the timing of those communications appeared to be later than the time reflected in the CCTV footage.
The Court observed the requirement to balance the individual liberty of the applicant with the interest of fair and effective investigation, while exercising its discretion under Section 482, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Considering the gravity of the allegations, the prima facie material in the form of CCTV footage, and the need for recovery of the property, the Court held that it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail and hence dismissed the bail application.
[Bikramdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (punjab_haryana) 1]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Anish Jain and Amit Jain, Advocates
For the respondent: Charanjit Singh Bhullar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by HPS Verma, Advocate
