The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim regular bail to a Sub-Inspector accused of demanding a bribe of ₹7 lakh to weaken a case against an accused in a loan fraud matter, while flagging a "deeply concerning trend" of accused public servants being reinstated to the very department or jurisdiction connected to their prosecution.

Justice Sumeet Goel directed the Chief Secretary, Haryana, to file a detailed affidavit on the framework governing reinstatement of such public servants, observing that such reinstatement carries "an inherent and grave propensity" for abuse of official clout, tampering with evidence and witness intimidation.

"This hazard is magnified when an accused public servant belongs to a law enforcement/investigating agency and is reinstated to the sensitive post, thereby affording him/her unhindered access to sensitive records and subordinate personnel involved in the very case against him/her."

The petitioner, Jora Singh, then serving as a Sub-Inspector, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), registered under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 61(2) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at the State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula.

According to the complaint, the complainant's friend, Rahul Aggarwal, and another person were detained by the E.O. Wing in a loan fraud case. A person named Paras allegedly told the complainant that if Rahul paid ₹7 lakh, a weak case would be prepared to secure his quick release, failing which additional cases would be registered.

The complainant alleges he handed over ₹50,000 to Paras outside the E.O. Wing, who passed it to an employee named Narendra Singh, and that Paras introduced him to the petitioner, who allegedly directed him to settle the arrangement with Paras.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, in custody since 02.04.2026, had been falsely implicated, that bribe money had been recovered from co-accused Paras Aggarwal, and that the challan had already been filed, making early conclusion of trial unlikely.

The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner, as a Sub-Inspector, faced direct and serious allegations, and that he was likely to tamper with evidence and intimidate the complainant if released. The State placed on record a custody certificate dated 25.08.2026.

The Court noted that the challan had been filed on 26.05.2026, that 28 prosecution witnesses had been cited but none examined, and that the rival contentions raised debatable issues best left for trial. It found nothing tangible to indicate a likelihood of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, and noted he had already spent four months and 23 days in custody with no other FIR against him. 

On the High Court's Powers Under Section 528 BNSS

The Court went on to observe that the High Court's powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) are "unbridled, unfettered and plenary", intrinsic to the High Court's very existence, and deserve to be construed with the widest amplitude to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 AIR SC 3263), which held that while a court hearing a bail application ordinarily should confine itself to the question of bail, a High Court, being a constitutional court with wide powers under Articles 226 and 227, could not simply "shut its eyes" where it found grave lapses by the investigating machinery with the potential to affect the justice delivery system.

The Court observed that, "time and again, this Court has observed a deeply concerning trend wherein public servants, upon being enlarged on Anticipatory bail/Regular bail during the pendency of trial for offence(s) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, are usually reinstated into active service. This situation assumes an alarmingly prejudicial dimension when such reinstatement results repatriation/posting of the accused to the very same department, office or geographical jurisdiction that forms direct subject matter of ongoing criminal prosecution."

It accordingly directed the Chief Secretary, Haryana, to file a comprehensive affidavit setting out the framework, standards and service rules governing reinstatement of such public servants, specifically addressing whether existing protocols require consultation with the prosecuting agency or the trial court before revoking a suspension, and how the threat of witness tampering or record manipulation is assessed before reinstatement.

The Court ordered the petitioner's release on interim regular bail till the next date of hearing, subject to conditions.

The Chief Secretary, Haryana, was directed to file the affidavit three days before the next date, with an advance copy to the petitioner's counsel.

The matter is listed on 28.09.2026, to be taken up in the urgent cause list.

Case Title: Jora Singh v. State of Haryana

Counsel: Shivansh Malik for the petitioner; Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana

Click here to read order