CBI gets DIG Bhullar’s custody for five days even as Punjab Vigilance too makes a dash for it

The CBI has already got nine-day police remand of the co-accused in the DIG Bhullar case, Kirshanu Sharda. Sources say the agency wants to confront Bhullar and Sharda face to face and to record their statements.

In a related development the Punjab Vigilance also wanted to take Bhullar’s custody by moving an application in a Mohali court but it did not succeed in the face of CBIs opposition. The CBI said Punjab Vigilance could question Bhullar in jail if need be. Further hearing in the matter will be held on November 3.

The counsel for Bhullar, senior advocate APS Deol argued in CBI court that the central agency is playing a “hide-and-seek game” with the accused. He pointed out that CBI has sought remand a day after the Vigilance Bureau registered the case against Bhullar.

Deol submitted out that the CBI did not seek the custody of the accused on two previous court hearings. He also said that social media was flashing incorrect information regarding the recovery of cash, ornaments and property documents pertaining to DIG Bhullar.

He said that the application for remand was not maintainable as no sanction was given by the state government. He said prior state government consent is required before the CBI can proceed in any case and that registration of the case against the DIG in Chandigarh is illegal because the alleged cause of action took place in Punjab and the application for remand is not maintainable.

Public prosecutor Narendra Singh told the court that CBI is seeking the remand to confront Bhullar with co-accused  Sharda. He said several chats between the two accused were recovered from the mobile phone of the two accused, which have to be corroborated. He also said that money trail is being looked into and forensic investigations of other electronic items are also being done. He added that some electronic gadgets have been deliberately hidden by the accused and these have to be recovered post his questioning. He said there is no contradiction between the CBI’s application and the production warrant sought by the Vigilance Bureau.

Bhullar, a 2007-batch IPS officer has been at the center of a high-profile corruption scandal since mid-October 2025. The case originated from allegations of bribery but quickly expanded to include charges of amassing disproportionate assets (DA) far exceeding his known sources of income.

On October 16 the CBI arrested Bhullar along with Sharda for allegedly accepting a bribe from a scrap dealer in exchange for favorable treatment in a police probe. Bhullar was remanded to judicial custody, which has since been extended to 14 days as of October 31.

DA case by Punjab Vigilance raises eyebrows

The Disproportionate Assets (DA) FIR registered by Punjab Police nearly a fortnight after the CBI raid on him discovered crores of rupees in cash, gold ornaments, expensive watches, cars and property documents worth several crores has raised eyebrows within legal circles as well as within Punjab Police.

Senior officers asked that when the matter is already under investigation by the CBI what is the locus of Vigilance Bureau to register another FIR and wish to take Bhullar into custody. “There seems to be an attempt to circumvent ongoing investigations by CBI. After having been caught napping on the rampant corruption taking place right under its nose the Vigilance Bureau’s FIR appears to be suspect,” said a senior officer not wanting to be named.

Another senior officer disclosed that the general principal is that there is only one FIR for the same offence arising from the same transaction or incident to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and harassment of the accused, the officer said. “There is a landmark Supreme Court judgement T.T Antony Vs State of Kerala (2001) which emphasised that a second FIR for the identical incident would violate Article 21 of the Constitution by allowing redundant probes,” said an officer familiar with police litigation matters.

However, there are also exceptions where a second FIR is permissible. Legal experts say this is possible when a new offence is disclosed from the same incident or fresh evidence or witness appears after the registration of the first FIR. “There are guidelines for the ‘sameness test’ which have been laid down by the Supreme Court regarding two FIRs arising from same incident. In case there is sufficient overlap between FIRs of state police and central agency then the two can be clubbed,” said a government lawyer familiar with the case.

From the homepage

‘Even Trump doesn’t know what could happen tomorrow’: Army Chief Upendra Dwivedi says future threats unpredictable

Washington Sundar stars as India defeat Australia by 5 wickets, level series 1-1

Ravi Shankar Prasad interview: ‘Rahul is a political tourist … Has Tejashwi mentioned vote chori? With 99.9% in as voters, he is exposed’