In a significant legal development, incarcerated Punjab Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police Harcharan Singh Bhullar has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking to nullify a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case against him, asserting that the federal agency overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries in Punjab without obtaining necessary state government consent.
Legal Challenge Against CBI's Authority
The matter was presented before a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor. Bhullar, currently detained at Model Jail in Burail, Chandigarh, received legal representation from senior advocate A S Rai alongside advocate Sangram Singh Saron.
The petition specifically targets the FIR registered by CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch in Chandigarh on October 16, 2025. This legal document accuses the police official of criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alongside violations of Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018.
Jurisdictional Dispute Takes Center Stage
According to Bhullar's legal submission, the CBI's investigative actions contravene the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act of 1946, which serves as the foundational legislation governing the agency's operations. The petition emphasizes that Punjab officially withdrew its general consent for CBI investigations on November 6, 2020, through an official notification issued by the Department of Home Affairs and Justice.
"The respondent CBI possesses no legal powers or jurisdiction to register a criminal case FIR against the petitioner within Punjab's territory or conduct any investigation," states the petition's synopsis. It further contends that none of the mandatory conditions outlined in the DSPE Act were satisfied before initiating the probe.
The legal challenge argues that since all alleged offenses occurred entirely within Punjab's geographical boundaries, involving Bhullar's official capacity as DIG of the Ropar (Roop Nagar) Range, and no aspect of the cause of action originated within Chandigarh Union Territory, the CBI's involvement lacks legal justification.
Case Background and Parallel Investigations
The controversy stems from allegations that Bhullar, operating through an intermediary named Kirshanu Sharda, solicited bribes to influence an ongoing investigation in a cheating case involving complainant Akash Batta. The CBI initiated its FIR following a verification process conducted on October 11, 2025, during which authorities allegedly intercepted a WhatsApp conversation between Sharda and Bhullar in Chandigarh's Sector 9-D market area.
Adding complexity to the situation, parallel investigations have emerged. On October 29, 2025, Punjab's own Vigilance Bureau registered FIR No. 26 against Bhullar concerning disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI coincidentally filed another FIR on identical grounds the same day, resulting in jurisdictional conflicts between the two investigative bodies.
Court documents from special CBI courts and Mohali's Chief Judicial Magistrate reveal ongoing disputes regarding custody rights and interrogation authority between the CBI and Punjab's Vigilance Bureau.
Procedural Violations Alleged
Beyond jurisdictional concerns, Bhullar's petition highlights several procedural irregularities during his arrest on October 16, 2025, from Mohali's District Administrative Complex. The detained officer claims authorities failed to produce him before a judicial magistrate within the constitutionally mandated 24-hour timeframe.
Additionally, the petition alleges investigating agencies neglected to provide written grounds for arrest, thereby violating Article 22 of the Indian Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The legal remedy sought extends beyond merely quashing the CBI's FIR. Bhullar's legal team has petitioned the court to invalidate all subsequent investigative actions undertaken by the agency. The petition further challenges the interpretation of Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act, arguing that the CBI's jurisdictional overreach infringes upon Punjab's exclusive constitutional authority over 'police' and 'public order' matters as defined in Entries 1 and 2 of the State List within the Constitution's Seventh Schedule.
As this high-stakes legal battle unfolds, it promises to establish significant precedents regarding the CBI's operational boundaries in states that have withdrawn general consent for federal investigations.
