HC junks Punjab DIG’s second bail plea, says prima facie case of bribe demand

The Bench noted that charges had been framed and the trial had commenced, though no witness had been examined so far. “…considering the nature of the accusations, the fact that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, there exists a reasonable apprehension that he may attempt to influence witnesses, tamper with witness or otherwise obstruct the course of proceedings, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its discretion to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner,” read the order.

This is the second time that the high court has rejected Bhullar’s bail plea, the first time being on February 17, 2026. The CBI had registered the FIR on October 15, 2025, under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The FIR was registered on the complaint one Akash Batta who alleged that Bhullar — then posted as DIG, Ropar Range — had demanded bribe through a private intermediary, Krishanu Sharda, for not taking any coercive steps against his business in a case registered at Sirhind police station.

A trap was laid and Krishanu was apprehended while allegedly accepting Rs 5 lakh as part of the bribe from Batta on October 16, 2025. Bhullar was arrested the same day.

Senior advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal, appearing for Bhullar, argued that the officer was “on the verge of superannuation” and had rendered more than three decades of service. “He is not required for further investigation…his direct role in demanding any amount of money from the complainant is not established and no recovery has been effected at his instance.”

The counsel argued that no witness had been examined so far and the trial would take considerable time to conclude. It was also submitted that there were no chances of Bhullar influencing witnesses as he stood suspended from service.

The defence also questioned the CBI’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Punjab government had withdrawn its general consent to the CBI under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act through its November 6, 2020 notification.

The CBI opposed the bail plea, relying on the recorded conversations, WhatsApp records and a controlled call conducted during verification. The prosecution submitted that the allegations of bribe were prima facie established from the material and that Bhullar had failed to point out any drastic or substantive change in circumstances since his earlier bail plea was dismissed.

The CBI further submitted that material witnesses were yet to be examined and there were chances of Bhullar influencing or intimidating them, “many of whom are Police official witnesses”.

The prosecution also argued that Bhullar was an IPS officer working under the control of the Central Government and that Punjab’s consent was not required for the CBI investigation. It pointed out that Bhullar and the co-accused were arrested in Chandigarh.

The High Court, on hearing the arguments, observed that while deciding bail, it has to consider “the nature of the accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which the conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State and other similar considerations.”

The Bench rejected the jurisdiction challenge, noting that although Punjab had withdrawn its consent, both accused were arrested in Chandigarh and “the substantial part of cause of action has also taken place at Chandigarh.”

Dismissing his bail plea, the HC also found no “drastic or substantive change in the circumstances” since dismissal of Bhullar’s previous bail petition.