If you consider definition from Agile Alliance and consider points as a metric for velocity, than yes, it makes sense.
It was also asked many times on various boards and forums, like this one on StackExchange, from where I personally like Joppe's answer:
You should not give points to bug resolution. Consider the fact that the bug comes forth from a story where the developers already earned points for completing the story. It should not receive points again where it actually shouldn't have earned the points to begin with.Bug fixing should have a negative effect on velocity. Otherwise dropping quality ends up being rewarded with an unaffected or even increased velocity!
Regardless of many 'yes' answers there are also a lot of people, like me, who thinks the answer should be 'no', for a very important reason: 1st principle of Agile, which states
Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.Let's ask a mode difficult (related) question: Are bugs fixing added value to your customers (or business)? The simple answer is yes, but when you look deeper into it don't you think those bugs were some broken promises or expectations in the first place? Bugs don't add value, on the contrary.
You promised something or a specific feature was expected by customers or business which was not yet delivered. Of course it takes time to make it right, maybe some aspects were way too complex and discovered only later, but still a broken promise.
That's exactly the 'technical debt' people are talking about, and ways to reduce it is exactly a responsible way to find and fix bugs. The theory says they should reduce their numbers over time, but is this right in practice? How you reduce them is you are treating bugs like feature and award points to them which increases velocity? A reduced velocity because of bugs is an immediate measure of the quality of work, and can be easily charted over time. How is your trend for bug fixing?