The Punjab and Haryana high court on Monday dismissed the second consecutive bail petition filed by suspended Punjab Police DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar in a corruption case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) last year.
During the previous hearing on August 5, the court had reserved its judgment.
Justice Manisha Batra dismissed the petition, holding that there had been no drastic or substantive change in circumstances since the petitioner’s earlier bail plea was rejected on February 17.
The case relates to allegations that Bhullar had demanded illegal gratification from complainant Akash Batta through co-accused Krishanu Sharda in exchange for refraining from taking any coercive action against the complainant’s business in a case registered at Sirhind police station.
According to the prosecution case, conversations between Bhullar and Sharda were recorded during verification. The CBI alleged that one such conversation indicated that Bhullar had instructed Sharda to collect ₹8 lakh from the complainant. Following registration of the FIR on October 15, 2025, the CBI laid a trap in Chandigarh the next day. Sharda was allegedly apprehended while accepting ₹5 lakh from the complainant as part of the gratification demanded by Bhullar. Bhullar was also arrested the same day.
The high court observed that the allegations, recorded conversations, verification report and trap proceedings prima facie made out a case concerning the demand and collection of gratification through the co-accused. The court rejected the argument that the absence of recovery directly from Bhullar weakened the prosecution case, noting that the co-accused had allegedly accepted ₹5 lakh on his behalf.
{{/usCountry}}The high court observed that the allegations, recorded conversations, verification report and trap proceedings prima facie made out a case concerning the demand and collection of gratification through the co-accused. The court rejected the argument that the absence of recovery directly from Bhullar weakened the prosecution case, noting that the co-accused had allegedly accepted ₹5 lakh on his behalf.
{{/usCountry}}The court further noted that material witnesses were yet to be examined and that Bhullar’s position in the police hierarchy made the apprehension of influencing or intimidating witnesses a factor that could not be ignored.
Rejecting the challenge to the CBI’s jurisdiction, the court noted that both the petitioner and co-accused were arrested in Chandigarh and that a substantial part of the cause of action had occurred there. Charges had already been framed, and the trial had commenced, although no witness had been examined so far.
The court ultimately held that there was a reasonable apprehension that Bhullar could influence witnesses, tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the proceedings. It therefore declined to grant bail and dismissed the petition.