No Anticipatory Bail for Judge Accused of Theft in a Deceased Judge's House

Courts witness all kinds of accused persons. Politicians, businessmen, police officers, doctors, and the list goes on. But when the accused is a serving judicial officer, and the alleged victim is a deceased colleague from the same judiciary, the case takes a legally fascinating and deeply uncomfortable stance. This is a tale of a judge accused of theft in another Judge’s house. The Sessions Court refused to allow anticipatory bail in theft case, based on prima facie circumstances. Here is a detailed emphasis upon what happened and what made the Court refuse anticipatory bail in this case.

Judge Accused of Theft

The matter pertains to Order dated 1st April, 2026 in Bikramdeep Singh vs State of Punjab, passed by the Additional Sessions Court at Patiala. The petitioner, aged 39 years, is a serving judicial officer in Punjab, a judge accused of theft. The FIR against him alleges that he entered the residence of a deceased Additional District & Sessions Judge. It was alleged that on the very night the latter passed away at a Patiala hospital, the accused judge removed gold, jewellery, and cash from the premises in a clandestine manner.

Facts of the Case

On 1st August, 2025, the then Additional District Judge posted at Sangrur, passed away at Amar Hospital, Patiala, while both his sons were abroad. The house was effectively unoccupied and unguarded, except for CCTV cameras.

The FIR of the theft was filed following the complaint of power of attorney holder of the deceased's elder son, a law professor at Punjabi University. The complaint reveals CCTV footage which recorded the entry of four individuals at the house in three cars. They entered the house, searched, and took away ancestral gold, jewellery, and cash.

While the FIR does not explicitly name the judge accused of theft, the prosecution's case is that the CCTV footage clearly shows him entering and exiting the premises alongside the co-accused and some official gunmen. The act, alleged to be without lawful authority and driven by dishonest intent, forms the basis of the FIR registered under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It corresponds to offences under Sections 457 (lurking house-trespass or housebreaking by night) and 380 (theft in a dwelling house) of the Indian Penal Code.

Anticipatory Bail in Theft Case

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 of the CrPC) is a pre-arrest bail. It protects a person from being taken into custody in the event of arrest. The Judge accused of theft in the house of deceased judge sought anticipatory bail, anticipating that his arrest was imminent given the seriousness of the FIR and the ongoing investigation.

Judges and Rule of Law

The Court addressed a crucial question while deciding anticipatory bail for judge accused of theft. Since it was a sitting judge, was he entitled to any sort of immunity or special protection? The petitioner's counsel cited the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat (1991 CaseBase(SC) 658). It was argued that the precedent grants judicial officers immunity from arrest and that the police were not following its guidelines.

The Court clarified that “The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court does not grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution or investigation. The safeguards relate to the manner of arrest and not to exemption from arrest where circumstances so warrant it, rather the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that no person whatever his rank, or designation may be, is, above law and he must face the penal consequences of infraction of criminal law. A Magistrate, Judge or any other Judicial Officer is liable to criminal prosecution for an offence like any other citizen but in view of the paramount necessity of preserving the independence of judiciary, the guidelines have been issued.”

No Anticipatory Bail for Judge accused of Theft

In an anticipatory bail in theft case of this gravity, the court applied the well-established factors from the Supreme Court's decision in Prahlad Singh Bhati vs NCT, Delhi And Another (2001 CaseBase(SC) 2458). The Court pressed upon the nature of accusation, the risk of tampering with witnesses, the likelihood of absconding, the character and standing of the accused, and the larger public interest.

The court also relied on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab (1980 CaseBase(SC) 328) wherein it was held that the power under CrPC Section 438 is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly.

What Weighed Against the Petitioner Judge

Several factors cumulatively led to the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, as highlighted in the Court order:

CCTV evidence: The CCTV footage shows the petitioner Judge entering and exiting the premises with his co-accused, carrying certain boxes and bags. Their body language and the manner of articles being taken away prima facie showed the act being done in a clandestine manner.
The timestamp: The Court accepted the prosecution's argument that the articles were removed before the petitioner contacted deceased Judge’s son, fatally undermining the defense of consent.
No convincing authorisation: The WhatsApp chats did not demonstrate lawful entrustment or permission to remove valuables.
Pending recovery: Substantial property remains unrecovered. The Court cited State Rep. By The C.B.I vs Anil Sharma (1997 CaseBase(SC) 245), wherein the Apex Court held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective than questioning an accused who enjoys anticipatory bail protection. The Court expounded that it disinters information and material that might otherwise remain concealed.
Gravity of the offence: The Court stated that the offence strikes at the integrity expected of a public servant, and particularly of a judicial officer. This institutional dimension adds weight to the case against protection, as per the Court.

Way Forward

The anticipatory bail in theft case has been dismissed by the Sessions Court based on prima facie facts and circumstances. The investigation continues, with recovery of the alleged stolen property remaining a key outstanding step. The matter is likely to travel further, either through a fresh bail application before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, or through the progression of criminal trial itself. Either way, it will be watched closely, not just as a criminal case, but as a test of whether the institution of the judiciary holds itself to the same standard of accountability it expects from others.