Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2026 Latest Caselaw 1431 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 16 February, 2026

CRM-M--702-2026 (O&M)                                                      1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-702-2026 (O&M)


Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar
                                                          ....Petitioner
                                         V/s
Central Bureau of Investigation
                                                          ....Respondent
Date of Decision : 16.02.2026
Date of Uploading : 17.02.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:    Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
            Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Special Public Prosecutor CBI and
            Mr. Akashdeep Singh,
                               gh, Special Public Prosecutor
            for the respondent-CBI.
            Ms. Puja Chopra, Senior Advocate with
            Ms. Palak Sharma, Advocate,
            Mr. Gurminder Singh Salana, Advocate and
            Mr. Tapish Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 483 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail in FIR

No.RC0052025A0019 dated 16.10.2025 registered for the offences

punishable under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with

Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station

CBI, ACB, Chandigarh.

Chandigarh

2. The gravamen of the FIR emanates from a written complaint

dated 11.10.2025 submitted by one Akash Batta (complainant),, alleging that

the petitioner, who at the relevant time was posted as DIG, Ropar Range,

Punjab Police, had demanded illegal gratification through a private

1 of 11

intermediary, namely Krishanu Sharda, for securing favourable treatment in

FIR No. 155/2023 registered registered at Police Station Sirhind and for ensuring that

no coercive steps were taken against the business of the complainant.. The

complaint was subjected to discreet verification by the CBI CBI. During such

verification, the conversations between the complainant aand nd the

intermediary - Krishanu Sharda were recorded and a controlled call is stated

to have captured the petitioner instructing the intermediary to collect an

amount of ₹8,00,000/-. On n the basis of the verification report dated

15.10.2025, the present FIR came to be registered and a trap was

accordingly laid on 16.10.2025 at Chandigarh, wherein the co co-accused accused -

Krishanu Sharda was apprehended while allegedly accepting ₹5,00,000/-- as

part of the demanded bribe. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and

the final report under Section 193 of the BNSS has been filed on

03.12.2025. The petitioner had earlier approached the Court of Special

Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, seeking the concession of regular bail. However,

the same was dismissed vide order dated 02.01.

02.01.2026.

It is in this factual backdrop, the present petition has come up

for receiving consideration before this Court.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

petitioner is a decorated officer with an unblemished service record recor

spanning more than three decades and the instant case is a result of

motivated allegations. Learned senior counsel has emphasized that no

recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the entire case of the

prosecution rests upon the alleged recover recovery y from a private individual who is

not a public servant. Learned senior counsel has further contended that the

entire case rests upon electronic evidence and the testimony of a 2 of 11

complainant who, according to the petitioner, has criminal antecedents lacks

credibility. Furthermore, there are material improvements in the version of

the complainant particularly regarding the date and manner of the alleged

demand. Learned senior counsell has also questioned the legality of the

arrest of the petitioner by asserting that the petitioner has been detained

much earlier in the day whereas the arrest has been shown in the evening

and he was produced before the Magistrate beyond the statutory pe period.

riod.

Learned senior counsel has canvassed that the Central Bureau of

Investigation has no jurisdiction to register and investigate the present case

on the ground that the alleged acts pertain to the State of Punjab and no

consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has

been obtained in this regard and, therefore, this foundational defect must

weigh in favour of the petitioner while considering the prayer for bail. It

has been further contended that the petitioner is already on bbail ail in a separate

disproportionate assets case and has scrupulously complied with all the

conditions imposed by the Court. Moreover, the petitioner is presently under

suspension and holds no official position, thereby eliminating any

possibility of influencing influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. According

to learned senior counsel, the investigation stands completed, the charge-

charge

sheet has been filed and, and therefore,, the continued incarceration of the

petitioner serves no purpose. On the strength of these su submissions, bmissions, the grant

of petition in hand is prayed for.

4. Per contra,, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI has

opposed the grant of bail by arguing that the demand of illegal gratification

is prima facie borne out from the recorded conversatio conversations, ns, WhatsApp data

and the controlled call conducted during verification. Learned counsel has 3 of 11

further iterated that the co-accused has accepted the tainted amount on

behalf of the petitioner and immediately contacted him which clearly

established the nexus. According to learned counsel, the offence involves

abuse of high public office and the sanction for prosecution has been

granted by the competent authority though the same is yet to be formally

placed on record. Moreover, further investigation under Secti Section on 193(9)

BNSS is continuing and several material witnesses are the subordinate

police officials of the petitioner who may be susceptible to influence.

Learned earned counsel has further the plea with regard to lack of jurisdiction holds

no merit as the substantial al part of the cause of action, including the trap,

occurred at Chandigarh and the petitioner ha has earlier withdrawn the writ

petition(s)) raising the same issue. Furthermore, the subsequent recovery of

the tainted amount coupled with the recorded conversations during the

transaction, prima facie, establishes demand, acceptance and recovery

thereby satisfying the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7A

of the Prevention Preventio of Corruption Act. Accordingly, a prayer has been made

for the dismissal of the petition in hand.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant has

contended that the complaint was lodged only after the petitioner has ha

repeatedly demanded illegal illegal gratification and extended threats of coercive

police action in case the demand was not fulfilled.. According to learned

senior counsel, the complainant has ha no reason to falsely implicate a senior

officer of the rank of DIG and has approached the inves investigating tigating agency as a

last resort to protect his business and personal liberty. Learned senior

counsel has emphasized that several material witnesses witnesses, who are police

officials and has been working under the administrative control of the 4 of 11

petitioner are yet to be examined and, therefore petitioner, therefore, susceptible to influence.

influence It

has been further argued that the enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this

stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution case especially when the

complainant and the shadow witness have not yet been examined. Learned

senior counsel has further contended that the trial is at a crucial stage as

charges have not yet been framed. On these grounds, learned senior counsel

for the complainant has prayed that the petition in petition for grant of

regular egular bail be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and

have carefully perused the record.

7. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by

this Court titled as Jatin Salwan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation =

2026 :PHHC:014657, relevant whereof reads as under:

"7. The preamble of our Constitution is not a mere decorative preface; it is a solemn covenant. The values of justice, equality and fraternity, enshrined d in the preamble, are the pillars of our democratic architecture. Corruption is a corrosive acid that eats away these pillars. Where corruption takes roots, the Rule of Law is replaced by the Rule of Transaction. An age old adage adage--'Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long.'--cautions cautions about the moral decay the menace of corruption presents, it assumes a more harrowing significance when the menace of corruption casts a shadow over the judiciary; an institution whose very lifeblood is the unsw unswerving erving faith and confidence placed in it by the common populace. Reiterating its earlier view in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal Vs. The State of Maharashtra; 2013 (4) SCC 642,, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its dicta in a Five Judge Bench Judgment in Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India; 2014 (9) SCC 1, observed thus:

"Criminality Criminality and corruption go hand in hand. From the date the Constitution was adopted, i.e., 26th January, 1950, a Red Letter Day in the history of India, the nation stood as a silent witness to corruption at high places. Corruption erodes the fundamental

5 of 11

tenets of the rule of law. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. State of Maharashtra, 2013(2) RCR (Criminal) 690 : 2013(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 11 : (2013) 4 SCC 642 the Court has observed :

"It It can be stated without any fear of contr contradiction adiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered. The only redee redeeming ming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with wi the constitutional morality."

8. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the

Court;

ourt; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and a

principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and

the interests of justice. While considering a ba bail application, the Court ourt must

evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating

the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the severity of

the likely sentence upon conviction. The Court ourt must also assess the

likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the

probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension

of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing

and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial rrole.

ole. Furthermore, the

Court ourt must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the

administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference

in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

6 of 11

titled as State through through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi Tripathi,, 2005 AIR Supreme

Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under:

"14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i)whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001 2001(2) (2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accusedd is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercisee its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders rders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application application of mind. It is also necessary for the court ourt granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension hension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (see Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) :

2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Crimin (Criminal) al) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338."

7 of 11

9. Indubitably, the allegations raised in the FIR in question are

serious in nature.

nature The prosecution case is based on a written complaint dated

11.10.2025 submitted by the complainant - Akash Batta, alleging therein the

petitioner, while posted as DIG, Ropar Range, demanded illegal

gratification through a private intermediary - Krishanu Sharda for extending

official favour in relation to FIR No. 155/2023 registered at Police Station

Sirhind as also for ensuring that no coercive action was taken against his

business. Pursuant to the complaint, the CBI conducted a verification during

which conversation(s) conversation between the complainant and the intermediary were

recorded and a controlled call was made. On the basis of the verification

report, a trap was laid on 16.10.2025 at Chandigarh, where the co co-accused accused

was apprehended while allegedly accepting Rs.5,00,000/- as part of the

demanded bribe. The petitioner was arrested on the same day. The offence

under er 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. 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 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.

co accused. At this stage, this material cannot be ignored or

brushed aside. The argument that the tainted amount was allegedly

recovered from a private individual, who is not a public servant, does not 8 of 11

help the petitioner at this stage as Section 77-A 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 mea means. At the

stage of consideration of plea for grant of regular bail, this Court is not

required to meticulous examine the evidence on record. The material which

has been placed on record indicates that the conversations recorded during

the verification proceedings, pro recovery of the tainted money from the co-

co

accused and a controlled call allegedly reflects acknowledgement of receipt

of the amount. Furthermore, the digital igital communication between the

petitioner and the intermediary has also been relied upon by tthe he prosecution.

In the considered opinion of this Court the veracity of such material shall be

ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. Att this juncture, it cannot be

said that the prosecution case is devoid of prima facie substance. The

argument that that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner does not, by

itself, entitle him to bail when the prosecution alleges acceptance through an

intermediary.

10. It is borne from the record the investigation qua the present

FIR has culminated in the filing filing of the charge charge-sheet;

sheet; however, the

proceedings are at a nascent stage. Charges have not yet been framed, the

complainant and the shadow witness have not been examined and the

sanction order, though stated to have been granted granted, is yet to be formally

placed d on record. These witnesses constitute the substratum of the

prosecution case. 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 pet petitioner itioner and the fact that some

of the witnesses are police personnel and government officials who had 9 of 11

been within his administrative fold. The mere fact that the petitioner stands

suspended does not ipso facto neutralize the poss possibility ibility of influencing of the t

witnesses and tampering with the evidence 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).

witness The rejection of bail by the learned Special

Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, after consideration of the material on record,

further persuades this Court not to take a contrary view in the absence of

any substantial change in circumstances. A person who has held eld a senior

position in the police hierarchy for decades is likely to retain professional

relationships and institutional familiarity which may have a bearing on

witnesses and the course of investigation investigation.. The grant of bail in a separate

disproportionate assets assets case also does not automatically entitle the petitioner

to bail in the present case, which must be evaluated independently on its

own factual matrix and the material available on record. In corruption cases

involving public servants holding high office, the Court is required to

exercise caution, particularly when material witnesses are yet to be

examined and the possibility of influence is asserted on reasonable and

prima facie tenable grounds.

11. Having regard to the totality of the circumsta circumstances, nces, including the

gravity of the allegations, the prima facie material collected during

verification trap laid by the police,, the role attributed to the petitioner verification,

through an intermediary, the stage of the proceedings, the vulnerability of

material witnesses, witnesses, the continuing investigation under Section 193(9) BNSS

and the potential influencing of the witnesses owing to the position of the

petitioner this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not petitioner, 10 of 11

deserve the concession of regular bail inn the factual milieu of the case in

hand.

12. In view of above ratiocination, it is directed as under:

(i) The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed

for the nonce.

nonce. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to apply for

regular ar bail afresh, in the first instance before the learned Special Court,

after the examination of the material witnesses (FIR-complainant complainant and

shadow hadow witness).

(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove

shall not have any effect on merits merits of the case and the investigating agency

as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without

being influenced with this order.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                                                   (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                      JUDGE
February 16, 2026
Ajay


             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                      Yes/No




                              11 of 11