The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to submit its response regarding a regular bail application. The petition comes from Harcharan Singh Bhullar, a suspended Deputy Inspector General of the Punjab Police.
Defense Arguments Against Custody
Senior advocate Bipin Ghai, representing Bhullar alongside Nikhil Ghai, presented key points to the court. They emphasized that the prosecution's case heavily depends on official witnesses and the complainant. Since Bhullar is already under suspension from his duties, his lawyers contend there is no realistic chance he could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Bhullar has consistently denied all allegations against him. He maintains there was no occasion, inducement, or rational motive for him to demand any illegal gratification. The bail plea further states these accusations contradict his service record, antecedents, and professional standing.
Details of the Bribery Case
This legal matter originates from an FIR registered on October 16, 2025. The charges involve Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended, along with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the CBI's version, Bhullar allegedly demanded a bribe through an intermediary named Krishanu. The bribe was supposedly from complainant Akash Batta to help settle a cheating case filed in 2023 at Sirhind police station. Krishanu was reportedly caught with Rs 4 lakh during a trap operation conducted on the same day.
The bail petition challenges this narrative. It argues that even according to the prosecution, the alleged trap centers on the co-accused Krishanu. The petition notes there is no claim of direct demand, acceptance, or recovery of money from Bhullar himself.
Investigation Status and Jurisdiction Challenges
Bhullar's legal team highlights that the investigation has concluded. The CBI filed its final report under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on December 3, 2025. Given this completion, they argue further custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
The petition also mounts a significant challenge to the case's very jurisdiction. It claims the FIR is invalid because mandatory consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was not obtained. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad, the plea alleges the trap was deliberately set in Chandigarh to artificially create jurisdiction. The defense argues the alleged offense substantially pertains to Punjab, not Chandigarh.
Alleged Procedural Violations in Arrest
Objections extend to the legality of Bhullar's arrest. The petition claims he was taken into custody around 11:30 AM on October 16, 2025. However, formal arrest occurred only at 8 PM the same day. He was produced before a magistrate after more than 24 hours had passed.
The defense characterizes this timeline as a serious procedural violation. They argue it affects the fundamental fairness of the entire legal process against him.
The court has scheduled the next hearing in this case for February 9. This follows a previous rejection of his bail plea by a CBI court, which the current High Court petition seeks to overturn.
