High Court Rejects Former Punjab Congress Minister's Plea For Fresh Probe In ₹50 Lakh Bribery Case, Calls It An Afterthought

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to order a fresh investigation in a corruption case against a former Punjab minister Sunder Sham Arora accused of offering a ₹1 crore bribe to Assistant Inspector General (AIG). [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 215]

Arora was allegedly caught red-handed with Rs.50 lakh cash in a trap by Vigilance in presence of witnesses.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya noted that the petitioner did not raise the issue of bias during investigation, bail proceedings, or discharge application and sought reinvestigation only later through an additional affidavit before the High Court.

"These facts lead to an inescapable conclusion that it is only as an afterthought the petitioner has sought re-investigation of the case at a belated stage, which cannot be permitted when cognizance of the offence has already been taken and the case is pending trial," it said.

The Court dismissed the plea filed seeking quashing of FIR under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with consequential proceedings. The petitioner had ultimately restricted his prayer to seeking a direction for fresh investigation by an independent agency.

The FIR was registered on the complaint of a Vigilance Bureau officer alleging that the accused, former minister Sunder Sham Arora, offered a bribe of ₹1 crore to secure relief in a pending vigilance case, with ₹50 lakh to be paid upfront.

Acting on the complaint, a trap was laid, and the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed with ₹50 lakh in cash, recovered and sealed in the presence of witnesses. The investigation also relied on CCTV footage, call records, and witness statements. A final report was filed, and charges were framed, with trial already underway.

Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the investigation was vitiated by bias, as it was conducted by an officer subordinate to the complainant.

This created a likelihood of a one-sided and unfair probe and certain investigative lapses, including failure to record conversations and absence of independent verification, rendered the investigation defective, he added.

The State opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner was caught red-handed in a trap case, with recovery of ₹50 lakh duly proved and the plea for reinvestigation was raised at a belated stage, after cognizance had been taken and trial had commenced.

After examining the submissions, the  Court rejected the plea for reinvestigation on multiple grounds:

 Invalid Investigation Not Ground For Reinvestigation

Relying on precedents including H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi and R.A.H. Siguran v. Shankare Gowda, the Court reiterated that invalid or defective investigation does not vitiate trial once cognizance has been taken, unless it results in miscarriage of justice.

No Presumption Of Bias, Subordinate Officer Can Investigate The Matter If Complainant Was Senior

Rejecting the argument that a subordinate officer would necessarily be biased, the Court observed such a contention is “far-fetched” and without legal basis.

"The argument is seemingly misconceived, as it is too far fetched to be accepted that a subordinate officer would always be biased in investigating a complaint filed by his superior, and would act in breach of his responsibility to be fair and impartial. Such a view would be outlandish amounting to drawing a presumption against the professional ethics and duties every officer has to stand by."

That is the reason even the legislature has deemed it appropriate not to proscribe an investigating officer from investigating his/her superior's complaint under the Cr.P.C., and this Court finds no justification to hold otherwise. Also, the view canvassed has no precedent, nor has any been cited," it added. 

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed. 

Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, Mr. S.S. Narula, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate,

Mr. Inderjeet Sihag, Advocate, and Mr. S.S. Kang, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, & Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Title:  Sunder Shyam Arora v. State of Punjab. 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 215

Click here to read order