E-Paper
Assets case: Vigilance FIR against Bhullar ‘cryptic’: CBI court
A CBI special court on Thursday granted a five-day custody of suspended DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar to the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with a disproportionate assets (DA) case, while reprimanding the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB) for having “hastily” registered the DA case against the officer and terming the investigation of state agency as “cryptic”.
A CBI special court on Thursday granted a five-day custody of suspended DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar to the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with a disproportionate assets (DA) case, while reprimanding the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB) for having “hastily” registered the DA case against the officer and terming the investigation of state agency as “cryptic”.
Bhullar, who has been in CBI custody since October 31 in a corruption case, is facing fresh charges related to alleged amassing of assets beyond his known sources of income. The suspended DIG was produced before the court after his five-day remand in a corruption case ended.
The court, presided over by judge Bhawna Jain, allowed the CBI’s request for police custody, stating that the gravity of the offence, the complexity of financial transactions, and the nature of documentary and digital evidence warranted further custodial interrogation. The court also granted a four-day police custody for co-accused Krishanu Sharda in the same case.
The CBI had arrested Bhullar on October 16 along with a middleman, Krishanu Sharda, for allegedly accepting ₹5 lakh in a bribe from a scrap dealer as “sewa pani”.
During searches at his residence in Chandigarh, the CBI seized cash worth over ₹7.36 crore, jewellery worth over ₹2.32 crore, 26 branded and expensive watches besides documents of immovable properties in the names of family members.
CBI questions VB ‘rushed’ approach
While granting the custodial remand, the court reprimanded the Punjab VB for its rushed approach in registering the DA case against Bhullar. The court found the Vigilance Bureau’s FIR to be cryptic and criticised the lack of proper verification before the case was filed.
The VB’s FIR was lodged on October 29 within 30 minutes of receiving “information” about Bhullar’s amassed wealth. The FIR was registered at 11am, citing a tip-off received at 10.35am. This was followed by the CBI’s own FIR at 12.30pm. The court observed that registering a case of such complexity — accusing Bhullar of illicit wealth accumulated over three decades — within half an hour was highly questionable.
The court also pointed out that an important page of the VB’s FIR was missing, which was acknowledged by Bhullar’s defense counsel. Additionally, the VB’s FIR claimed that Bhullar owned 20 commercial shops, but the CBI investigation later revealed that he had accumulated over 50 properties, casting doubt on the accuracy of the VB’s investigation.
Court highlights procedural issues
Special judge Bhawna Jain raised concerns about the VB’s speed in investigating Bhullar’s assets, especially since such a detailed investigation — covering 30 years of service — should not have been completed so hastily. The court noted: “Assets of the accused accumulated over 30 years cannot be verified within a time frame of less than 30 minutes.”
The court questioned whether the VB and CBI were competing to register the FIRs in a way that would allow them to circumvent each other’s jurisdiction. The judge added that this conflict raised important questions about how the agencies were handling the case.
The court also pointed out discrepancies in the VB’s investigation, noting that the FIR was based on information allegedly derived from media reports rather than a thorough verification of sources.
Additional public prosecutor for VB Harbhajan Kaur remained present before the court throughout the proceedings, but no argument was raised on her behalf despite the query put by the court as to whether her presence is to be marked in the order or not, to which she replied in negative. “At this stage, it cannot be assumed only on the basis of time of the FIR as to whether the FIR registered by the Punjab Vigilance was prior in time or it was the FIR registered by the CBI which was prior in time,” said the court.
CBI’s evidence against Bhullar
CBI’s public prosecutor Narender Singh presented a detailed list of assets allegedly linked to Bhullar, which were recovered during investigations stemming from the earlier corruption case.
The CBI claimed to have found a cash stash of ₹7.36 crore, gold and silver worth ₹2.32 crore, as well as 26 luxury watches, high-end vehicles including Mercedes, Audi, Innova, and Fortuner and substantial amounts in bank accounts and fixed deposits in Bhullar’s and his family members’ names.
The CBI also conducted searches on November 4 at multiple locations, where it reportedly seized ₹20.5 lakh in cash, digital devices, including an Apple laptop, two mobile phones, and property-related documents. These documents are now under examination to establish their connection to Bhullar’s alleged illicit wealth.
The CBI argued that it needed five days of custodial interrogation to conduct a thorough investigation, particularly to trace the movement of cash, examine documents linking Bhullar to benamidars (proxy owners), and to probe potential involvement of public servants and private individuals who may have helped Bhullar hide his wealth.
Bhullar’s defence counsel argued that the CBI’s FIR violated legal norms by being registered after the VB had already filed its case. According to the defence, two FIRs for the same offence cannot be valid under Indian law. The counsel further urged the court to quash the CBI FIR, claiming that the case was based on improper procedures and lacked a legal foundation.
Despite the defense’s objections, the CBI maintained that the VB’s FIR was improperly filed without sufficient investigation, while its own investigation was based on substantial evidence collected during the earlier trap case.
