Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by accused-petitioner, DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar, under Section 483 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking bail in alleged corruption case involving Rs. 8,00,000 registered under Section 61(2) of the Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (‘Corruption Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., denied him bail stating that he does not deserve theconcession of regular bail.
Background
On 11-10-2025, the complainant alleged that the accused, who at the relevant time, was posted as DIG had demanded illegal gratification through a private intermediary for securing favorable treatment in a case and for ensuring that no coercive steps were taken against the business of the complainant. The complaint was subjected to discreet verification by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’). During such verification, the conversations between the complainant and the intermediary were recorded, and a controlled call was stated to have captured the accused instructing the intermediary to collect Rs. 8,00,000.
Based on the verification report, the said FIR was registered, and a trap was laid on 16-10-2025 wherein the co-accused was apprehended while allegedly accepting Rs. 5,00,000 as part of the demanded bribe. The accused was arrested on the same day, and the final report under Section 193 of the BNSS was filed on 3-12-2025.
The accused had earlier approached the Court of Special Judge, CBI seeking regular bail, however, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court.
The accused contended that he was a decorated officer with an unblemished service record spanning more than three decades, and the present case was a result of motivated allegations. It was further argued that no recovery was made from him, and the entire case rested upon the alleged recovery from a private individual who was not a public servant. Per contra, the respondent contended that the co-accused had taken the sum from a private individual on accused’s behalf and immediately contacted the accused which clearly established the nexus.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the grant of bail fell within the discretionary domain of the Court, however, such discretion should be exercised in a judicious and principled manner ensuring that it aligned with established legal precedents and the interests of justice. The Court further stated that “while considering a bail application, the Court 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 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 role. Furthermore, the Court must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice or thwarting its due course.”
The Court noted that the allegations raised in the FIR were serious in nature and stated that the offence under Section 7 of the 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. Therefore, the Court stated that the gravity of the offence and the position held by the accused were relevant factors while adjudicating the prayer for grant of regular bail.
Considering the material on record, the Court noted that the complaint was first verified by the CBI before the said FIR was registered. The recorded conversations, the verification report, and the trap proceedings indicated a demand for illegal gratification and the collection of part of the bribe amount through a co-accused. The Court opined that at the given stage, the stated material could not be “ignored or brushed aside”.
Regarding the argument pertaining to the tainted amount being allegedly recovered from a private individual, the Court held that the contention did not help the accused at the current stage as Section 7-B of the Corruption Act covered any person who accepted or obtained undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means.
The Court held that the veracity of such material should be ratiocinated upon during trial and at the given juncture, it could not be said that the prosecution case was devoid of prima facie substance. The Court stressed that the argument that no recovery was made from the accused did not entitle him when the prosecution alleged acceptance through an intermediary.
The Court highlighted that the investigation record revealed that the complainant and the shadow witness were yet to be examined, and they constituted the substratum of the prosecution case. Further, the Court stated that “the apprehension expressed by the prosecution and the complainant regarding possible influence could not be brushed aside lightly, particularly in view of the rank held by the accused and the fact that some of the witnesses are police personnel and government officials who had been within his administrative fold.”
The Court opined that the suspension of the accused did not neutralize the possibility of influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence as it could not 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”
Further, the Court stated that the “a person who has held 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.” The Court highlighted that the grant of bail in a separate disproportionate assets case also does not automatically entitle the accused to bail in the present case, which must be evaluated independently on its own factual matrix and the material available on record. The Court stated that “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.”
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition at hand and held that the accused did not deserve the concession of regular bail.
[Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar v. CBI, CRM M No. 702 of 2026 (O&M), decided on 16-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate and Nikhil Ghai, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ravi Kamal Gupta, Special Public Prosecutor CBI and Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor
For the Complainant: Puja Chopra, Senior Advocate, Palak Sharma, Advocate, Gurminder Singh Salana, Advocate and Tapish Gupta, Advocate
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
