Punjab and Haryana HC Denies Bail to DIG Accused of Demanding Rs 8 Lakh Bribe Through Intermediary

Justice Manisha Batra dismissed the second bail petition of DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar, arrested by CBI in a bribery trap, citing witness tampering risk and recorded conversations linking him to the demand.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has refused bail for the second time to Harcharan Singh Bhullar, a Deputy Inspector General posted with Ropar Range of Punjab Police, who was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 16 October 2025 following a bribery trap. Justice Manisha Batra, sitting singly, dismissed the petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, finding that recorded conversations, a controlled verification call, and WhatsApp records prima facie establish a demand for illegal gratification. With material witnesses yet to be examined and charges freshly framed, the Court held that the risk of witness influence could not be discounted given the petitioner's seniority in the police hierarchy.

How the CBI Case Arose

On 11 October 2025, a complainant named Akash Batta submitted a written complaint to the CBI alleging that Bhullar, then posted as DIG Ropar Range, had demanded illegal gratification through an intermediary named Krishanu. The alleged purpose was to ensure no coercive steps were taken against the complainant's business in connection with FIR No. 155 of 2023, registered against him at Police Station Sirhind, and to secure favourable treatment in that case.

The CBI began verifying the allegations discreetly. During that period, conversations between Krishanu and the petitioner were recorded. One such conversation, according to the prosecution, revealed that Bhullar had instructed Krishanu to collect Rs 8 lakhs from the complainant. The FIR — bearing RC 0052025A0019 — was registered on 15 October 2025 under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh.

A trap was laid on 16 October 2025. Krishanu was apprehended while allegedly accepting Rs 5 lakhs from the complainant as part of the gratification. Bhullar was arrested the same day. A challan under Section 193 of BNSS has since been filed and charges stand framed.

The Second Bail Petition and Previous Proceedings

Bhullar's first bail application, CRM-M-702-2026, was dismissed by this Court on 17 February 2026. He then challenged that order before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the SLP, granted him liberty to approach the High Court afresh for bail if the trial did not commence within two months of that order. The trial has since commenced, though no witness has yet been examined, prompting the present second petition.

The petition is his second successive application under Section 483 of BNSS, filed after both the Trial Court and this Court had declined bail earlier.

Arguments Raised on Behalf of the Petitioner

Senior Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal, appearing for Bhullar, advanced several grounds. He submitted that the petitioner has rendered more than three decades of service and is on the verge of superannuation. Bhullar has been in custody since 16 October 2025 and is no longer required for investigation, which stands completed. Counsel argued that even on the prosecution's own case, the petitioner had no direct role in demanding money from the complainant personally, and that no recovery had been effected from him directly since it was Krishanu who allegedly accepted the amount.

On the question of witness influence, it was submitted that the petitioner stands suspended from service and therefore poses no real threat to witnesses.

A jurisdictional challenge was also pressed. Counsel pointed to a notification dated 6 November 2020 by which the Government of Punjab had withdrawn the general consent accorded to the CBI under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Since the petitioner was posted in Punjab and worked under the State government, it was argued that prosecution could not be sanctioned without the prior consent of Punjab, and that the CBI's investigation itself was therefore without jurisdiction. The submission was that the State of Punjab, not the CBI, was the competent authority to register the FIR, accord sanction, and prosecute him.

CBI's Response

Special Public Prosecutor Ravi Kamal Gupta, assisted by counsel for the complainant, opposed bail on all grounds. The prosecution submitted that the demand for illegal gratification is prima facie established through the recorded conversations between Bhullar and Krishanu, the WhatsApp record, and a controlled call conducted during verification. The previous petition had been dismissed on merits, and no drastic or substantive change in circumstances had been demonstrated to justify entertaining a fresh petition.

On the witness tampering concern, the prosecution pointed out that material witnesses remain to be examined and that many of them are police officials — personnel who may be susceptible to influence from a senior officer of Bhullar's rank, even one under suspension.

On jurisdiction, the CBI countered that the petitioner is an IPS officer working under the control of the Central Government and that consent of the State Government was therefore not required. Both Krishanu and Bhullar were arrested at Chandigarh, and a substantial part of the cause of action had occurred there, outside Punjab's territorial jurisdiction. The prosecution further noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition raising the same jurisdictional issues but had subsequently withdrawn it.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Batra identified the governing considerations for bail: nature of the accusations, supporting evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, likelihood of securing the accused's presence at trial, apprehension of witness tampering, and the larger public interest.

The Court held that the FIR allegations, read with the recorded conversations, verification report, and trap proceedings, prima facie make out a case for demand of gratification and its collection through Krishanu. The absence of recovery directly from Bhullar was not found persuasive, since Krishanu is alleged to have accepted Rs 5 lakhs on the petitioner's behalf.

On the witness tampering risk, the Court was explicit: material witnesses have not yet been examined, and the apprehension that Bhullar might attempt to intimidate or influence them “cannot be ignored, keeping in view the position which the petitioner was holding in the hierarchy of Police Department.”

On jurisdiction, the Court acknowledged that under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, consent of the State Government is ordinarily required, and that Punjab's notification of 6 November 2020 withdrew that general consent. However, it rejected the jurisdictional objection at the bail stage. The co-accused and Bhullar were arrested at Chandigarh, and a substantial part of the cause of action took place there. The Court also recorded that the petitioner had filed a writ petition on this ground and subsequently withdrew it.

Justice Batra drew on the Supreme Court's observations in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal & Anr v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642, which had described corruption as an ill that “mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress” and corrodes the institutions of governance. The Court also cited observations from a coordinate bench in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (2014) 8 SCC 682, to the effect that the PC Act mandates tracking down corrupt public servants regardless of their rank, and that “office of public power cannot be the workshop of personal gain.”

On the question of changed circumstances — a prerequisite for entertaining a successive bail petition — the Court found that the commencement of trial did not constitute a drastic or substantive change sufficient to distinguish the present application from the earlier dismissed petition.

Order

Justice Manisha Batra dismissed CRM-M-34433-2026 on 10 August 2026. The Court clarified that all observations made in the order were for the limited purpose of deciding the bail petition and would have no bearing on the merits of the underlying case. Any pending application in the proceedings was rendered infructuous consequent to the dismissal.