Punjab court denies anticipatory bail to civil judge accused of stealing jewellery from another judge’s house

A court has denied pre-arrest bail to Bikramdeep, citing evidence that prima facie corroborates his presence at the scene of a crime alongside co-accused individuals. The decision rests on CCTV footage and the assessment that WhatsApp chats do not demonstrate authorization for the removal of valuables from the deceased’s home.

CCTV Evidence and Clandestine Activity

The Court noted that CCTV footage appeared to confirm Bikramdeep’s presence at the scene with others involved in the case. The court stated the body language of individuals in the footage, including the petitioner, and the manner in which items were being removed, “prima facie shows that the act is being done in a clandestine manner.”

WhatsApp Chats Do Not Demonstrate Consent

Bikramdeep had submitted WhatsApp chats as evidence, but the Court found they did not indicate consent or authorization from the deceased’s son for the removal of valuables. The chats, according to the court, “merely reflect general communication regarding the arrival of Angadpal Singh in India and his emotional state.”

The timing of the communications was also a factor, with the court observing that the WhatsApp exchanges occurred after 10:15 PM, while the CCTV footage was recorded up to 9:50 PM. This timing, the court stated, “prima facie revealing that the articles were taken away prior to the contact of the petitioner with Angadpal Singh.”

Judicial Officer Status Not a Factor

The Court also rejected the argument that Bikramdeep, as a judicial officer, was entitled to special protection from arrest. The court emphasized that legal safeguards pertain to the *manner* of arrest, not exemption from arrest when circumstances warrant it.

“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,” the court added.

Ultimately, the Court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify pre-arrest bail, and the application was denied.