© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Jailed Punjab Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Police Harcharan Singh Bhullar on Wednesday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash a CBI bribery case against him, arguing that the agency cannot probe offences in Punjab without the state’s consent. The CBI opposed the plea, asserting that the FIR was lawfully registered in Chandigarh and that the agency was fully empowered to investigate.
The Punjab Government’s counsel supported the challenge. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor adjourned the matter to the first week of December.
Appearing for Bhullar, senior advocate A S Rai, assisted by advocate Sangram Singh Saron, argued that under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, the CBI can investigate in a state only if the Centre issues a notification under Section 3, extends powers under Section 5, or secures the state’s consent under Section 6. Punjab withdrew its general consent on November 6, 2020, Rai said, and no case-specific approval was granted.
Counsel submitted that the alleged offences occurred entirely within Punjab, where Bhullar was DIG of the Ropar Range, and that nothing in the record linked the case to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. They argued that the CBI, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to register an FIR or probe the case.
Opposing the plea, the CBI’s counsel told the court that the FIR was registered in Chandigarh after a verification conducted in the city, during which a WhatsApp call between Bhullar and alleged middleman Kirshanu Sharda was intercepted in Sector 9 D. The counsel said that this gave the agency territorial jurisdiction under the DSPE Act, and that Chandigarh being a Union Territory, no state consent was required. The CBI also maintained that the allegations disclosed cognisable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that its actions were legally sustainable.
At this point, when the Punjab counsel supported Bhullar’s plea, reiterating that no consent had been granted, the Chief Justice asked, “Why are you so bothered?”
On the sequence of events, counsel for Bhullar referred to an earlier FIR No. 155 dated October 29, 2023, at Sirhind police station, where complainant Akash Batta is accused of cheating and forgery related to tax evasion in his scrap iron business. They argued that Batta fabricated the bribery allegation to avoid prosecution in that case. The CBI’s FIR, registered on October 16, 2025, accuses Bhullar under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The counsel also pointed to simultaneous investigations. On October 29, 2025, the Punjab Vigilance Bureau registered FIR No. 26 against Bhullar for disproportionate assets. The CBI registered a separate FIR on the same day on similar grounds, leading to what counsel described as a jurisdictional tussle. Orders of special CBI courts and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, placed before the bench, showed competing claims over custody and interrogation.
They further alleged that Bhullar’s arrest on October 16, 2025, from the District Administrative Complex in Mohali violated Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, as he was not produced within 24 hours and was not supplied written grounds of arrest.
Rai sought quashing of the CBI FIR and all consequential steps, arguing that the agency’s interpretation of Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act amounted to an encroachment on Punjab’s exclusive powers over police and public order under the State List.
The court directed the CBI counsel to produce the relevant order issued under Section 51 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946.
