Suspended DIG Bhullar challenges FIR, CBI probe; HC issues notice to Centre, Punjab
The matter came up before the bench of Justice Sumeet Goel, which sought responses from the respondents by May 26.
Bhullar in his plea also raised objections regarding the manner of his arrest, alleging violation of constitutional safeguards, statutory protections and due process requirements. (file) The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday issued notice to the Centre, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Punjab government on a petition filed by suspended DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him by the CBI in a corruption case. Bhullar has also challenged the CBI’s jurisdiction to investigate the matter after Punjab withdrew general consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act.
The matter came up before the bench of Justice Sumeet Goel, which sought responses from the respondents by May 26.
In his petition, Bhullar sought quashing of the FIR and “all consequential proceedings arising therefrom”, including his arrest, remand and the ongoing investigation, contending that the CBI lacked jurisdiction to initiate action in Punjab after withdrawal of general consent by the state government on November 6, 2020.
According to the plea, the Punjab government had withdrawn the general consent granted to the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) on November 6, 2020. Bhullar argued that after withdrawal of such consent, the CBI could not “suo motu initiate inquiry, investigation or coercive action” in matters connected with the state of Punjab without fresh consent of the state government or directions from a constitutional court.
The petition stated that the FIR, arrest, remand and all consequential proceedings initiated thereafter were “null and void, illegal and unconstitutional in the eyes of law”.
Bhullar, a 1993-batch Punjab Police Service officer who was promoted to the IPS cadre in 2015, submitted before the High Court through counsels Senior Advocate Tanu Bedi and Advocates Vipul Joshi and Ishan Khetarpal that the Punjab Vigilance Bureau had already registered a case and commenced investigation against him in October 2023. Despite this, the CBI allegedly registered a separate FIR at Chandigarh in October 2025 on the basis of a bribery complaint, though the allegations pertained to Punjab and related to a Punjab cadre police officer.
The plea contended that registration of a second FIR on the “same set of allegations and facts” was contrary to settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Questioning the CBI’s authority to proceed in the matter, the petitioner further argued that by initiating a parallel probe in both the alleged trap case and the disproportionate assets matter, the agency had encroached upon the domain of the Punjab Vigilance Bureau.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that “police” and “public order” fall within the State List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and, therefore, in the absence of express consent of the state government, the CBI’s action against a state cadre officer was “without jurisdiction” and amounted to “a direct assault on the federal structure”.
Bhullar in his plea also raised objections regarding the manner of his arrest, alleging violation of constitutional safeguards, statutory protections and due process requirements. He submitted that he had not been afforded the full benefit of protections guaranteed under law during the course of the proceedings initiated against him.
Seeking interim relief, Bhullar urged the High Court to stay further proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR and restrain the CBI from taking coercive steps against him during pendency of the matter.
After hearing the preliminary submissions, Justice Sumeet Goel issued notice to the Centre, Punjab government and the CBI, directing them to file their responses before the next date of hearing on May 26.
Share
