Sign in

Chandigarh: Advocate arrested for seeking ₹30 lakh bribe to ‘influence judicial officer’ in a divorce case

The advocate Jatin Salwan had alleged told the complainant that he could exert influence over the judicial officer posted in Bathinda

Published on: Aug 17, 2025, 04:36:18 IST
By , Chandigarh
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

City-based advocate Jatin Salwan has been arrested in a corruption case for allegedly demanding 30 lakh bribe for “securing a favourable order” in a divorce case pending before a Bathinda court.

The case has been registered under Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018. (HT File)
The case has been registered under Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018. (HT File)

A Ferozepur resident, Harsimranjit Singh, had approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that Salwan was demanding 30 lakh to manipulate the outcome of his cousin, Sandeep Kaur’s divorce case. The advocate had allegedly claimed that he could exert influence over the judicial officer posted in Bathinda.

The CBI team, while going through the recorded telephonic conversations between the complainant and Salwan, found that the advocate had clearly demanded the bribe. In one of the recordings, Salwan was purportedly heard saying: “Rishwat de paise kade ghat nahi honde” (bribe amount is never reduced).

As per the complainant, Salwan initially insisted that the amount must be paid in full but later agreed to accept an initial payment of 5 lakh as a token installment. Salwan also conveyed that another person, acting on behalf of the judicial officer, would arrive to collect the first installment.

The case has been registered under Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). The case also names other unknown public servants and private individuals who may have been involved.