Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To DIG HS Bhullar In Corruption Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the regular bail plea of Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar, a senior Punjab Police officer, in a corruption case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).Justice Sumeet Goel noted that the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly when attributed to an officer of such rank, has serious ramifications for the integrity of the criminal justice system and erodes public confidence in the administration of law. The gravity of the offence and the position held by the petitioner are, therefore, relevant factors while adjudicating the prayer for grant of regular bail, added the Court. It further pointed that the material which has been placed on record before this Court shows that the complaint was first verified by the CBI before the FIR in question was registered. The Court highlighted that 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 ignored or brushed aside.The petition was filed seeking regular bail in FIR dated October 16, 2025, registered by the CBI, ACB, Chandigarh for offences punishable under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The FIR emanated from a written complaint dated October 11, 2025 submitted by one Akash Batta. It was alleged that Bhullar, who was posted as DIG, Ropar Range at the relevant time, demanded illegal gratification of ₹8 lakh through a private intermediary, Krishanu Sharda, in return for securing favourable treatment in FIR No. 155/2023 registered at Police Station Sirhind and to ensure that no coercive action was taken against the complainant's business.After discreet verification, including recorded conversations and a controlled call, the CBI laid a trap on October 16, 2025 at Chandigarh. The co-accused was allegedly apprehended while accepting ₹5 lakh as part of the demanded bribe. Bhullar was arrested the same day. The final report under Section 193 BNSS was filed on December 3, 2025.His earlier bail plea had been dismissed by the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh on January 2, 2026.Senior Advocate Bipan Ghai, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner is a decorated officer with over three decades of unblemished service and no recovery was effected from him; the alleged recovery was from a private individual.The prosecution case rests primarily on electronic evidence and the complainant's testimony, whose credibility was questioned and the CBI lacked jurisdiction as the alleged acts pertained to Punjab and no consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was obtained, he added.Opposing the plea the CBI submitted that recorded conversations, WhatsApp data and the controlled call prima facie establish demand and acceptance. It was contended that the co-accused accepted the tainted amount on behalf of the petitioner and immediately contacted him, establishing nexus. The prosecution further argued that several material witnesses are subordinate police officials and susceptible to influence.Counsel for the complainant also opposed the bail, contending that charges have not yet been framed and key witnesses, including the complainant and shadow witness, are yet to be examined.Referring to established principles governing bail, including those laid down in State through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, the Court reiterated that while bail is discretionary, it must be exercised judiciously, considering factors such as prima facie evidence, gravity of offence, likelihood of influencing witnesses and the danger of justice being thwarted.Justice Goel noted that, Recorded conversations, the verification report and trap proceedings prima facie indicate demand and collection of part of the bribe through an intermediary.The absence of direct recovery from the petitioner does not automatically entitle him to bail where acceptance through an intermediary is alleged, added the judge.It also noted that, "the mere fact that the petitioner stands suspended does not ipso facto neutralize the possibility of influencing of the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. 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)."Charges have not yet been framed and key witnesses are yet to be examined, the judge said. "The apprehension expressed by the prosecution and the complainant regarding possible influence cannot be brushed aside lightly, particularly in view of the rank held by the petitioner and the fact that some of the witnesses are police personnel and government officials who had been within his administrative fold," In the light of the above, the...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To DIG HS Bhullar In Corruption Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags