Advocate Accused Of Demanding ₹30 Lakh Bribe To Influence Judicial Officer Not Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular bail plea filed by an Advocate accused of demanding illegal gratification of ₹30 lakh for allegedly influencing a judicial officer to secure a favourable order in a divorce case, holding that the allegations strike at the very foundation of the justice delivery system and warrant a cautious approach.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In cases involving corruption and misuse of influence in the judicial process, such factors by themselves are not sufficient to grant bail especially when the allegations are supported by prima facie material. The petitioner is an Advocate with long professional experience. At this stage, it cannot be said that there does not exist a reasonable apprehension/concern that his release may affect the course of investigation or trial including the possibility of influencing the witness(s)."

Sacrilegious Affront To Judiciary

The judge said, when an advocate, who is considered as an officer of the Court, solicits or accepts illegal gratification under the pretext of influencing a judicial outcome, the act is not merely a private fraud but sacrilegious affront to the judiciary as an institution. It is the duty of this Court to treat such transgressions as an existential threat to the sanctity of the institution.

The Court added that, in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the conclusion of the investigation and the subsequent presentation of Challan/Final Report, as well as, the petitioner having undergone a custody of around 51⁄2 months for an offence punishable with up to 7 years of Imprisonment (maximum), constitute factors relevant for consideration of bail, however, they cannot be viewed in vacuum and nor do they operate as an absolute passport for enlargement on bail.

These mitigating factors do not preclude the Court from scrutinizing the gravitas of the allegations and their broader socio-legal implications. When an advocate, who is considered as an officer of the Court, solicits or accepts illegal gratification under the pretext of influencing a judicial outcome, the act is not merely a private fraud but sacrilegious affront to the judiciary as an institution, it said.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail in connection with an FIR registered by the CBI, ACB, Chandigarh under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 13.08.2025 submitted by Harsimranjit Singh, who alleged that the petitioner—an Advocate practising at the Punjab & Haryana High Court—demanded ₹30 lakh as illegal gratification to procure a favourable judicial order in a divorce matter pending at Bathinda, concerning the complainant's cousin sister Smt. Sandeep Kaur.

Upon receipt of the complaint, the CBI conducted a verification on 13 and 14 August 2025, during which telephonic conversations between the complainant and the petitioner were recorded. According to the CBI, the verification report prima facie substantiated the demand of bribe.

Following registration of the FIR on 14.08.2025, a trap was laid the same day. During the trap proceedings, co-accused Satnam Singh allegedly accepted ₹4 lakh from the complainant as part payment of the demanded bribe, claiming to have been sent by the petitioner. The conversation during the transaction was also recorded.

Subsequently, the petitioner was apprehended from his residence. Upon his directions, the bribe amount was recovered from the co-accused. The petitioner was arrested on 14.08.2025 and remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2025. His bail plea had earlier been rejected by the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh on 01.09.2025.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the FIR was the result of a motivated and malicious exercise of power and the essential ingredients of Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act were not attracted as the petitioner was not a public servant.

The alleged demand was misconstrued from what was actually a professional fee.

Opposing the bail plea, the CBI argued that the allegations were exceptionally grave, particularly as the petitioner was an Advocate and officer of the Court who allegedly demanded money by invoking influence over judicial officers.

Referring to constitutional values and Supreme Court cases including State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, the High Court underscored that corruption, especially when it casts a shadow over the judiciary, poses a grave threat to the rule of law and public confidence.

Allegations Impacts Public Trust In Judiciary

The Court observed that indubitably, the allegations raised in the FIR in question are "serious in nature which are not confined only to monetary gain alone. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate demanded large amount of money by claiming that he could influence, judicial officer and secure a favourable order in a divorce case. Such allegations, if found true, do not affect only the complainant but have a wider impact on public trust in the justice delivery system."

It added that, The material which has been placed on record before the Court shows that the complaint was first verified by the CBI before the FIR in question was registered."The recorded conversations, the verification report, and the trap proceedings prima facie indicate a demand for illegal gratification and the collection of part of the bribe amount through a co-accused. At this stage, this material cannot be legally ignored or brushed aside."

Justice Goel said that the argument that the petitioner is not a public servant does not help him at this stage as Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act squarely covers any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means.

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations; the prima facie material indicating the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification; the potential impact on public confidence in the justice delivery system, the plea was rejected.

Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate and Mr. S.S. Narula, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI.

Title: Jatin Salwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Click here to read order