DIG in ₹8 Lakh Bribery Trap Case Denied Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cites Gravity, Recorded Calls & Risk of Influence
Case Name: Harcharan Singh Bhullar @ H.S. Bhullar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Date of Decision: 16 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-702-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in corruption cases involving senior public officials, particularly where prima facie material includes recorded conversations, controlled calls, and recovery of tainted money through an intermediary, regular bail cannot be granted at a nascent stage of trial. The Court emphasized that the gravity of allegations, the rank of the accused, and the potential to influence material witnesses are significant considerations while adjudicating bail under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Summary: The petitioner, a senior IPS officer posted as DIG, Ropar Range, Punjab Police, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in FIR No. RC0052025A0019 dated 16.10.2025 registered by CBI, ACB, Chandigarh under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act .
The FIR emanated from a written complaint dated 11.10.2025 by Akash Batta, alleging that the petitioner demanded ₹8,00,000/- as illegal gratification through a private intermediary, Krishanu Sharda, for securing favourable treatment in FIR No. 155/2023 registered at Police Station Sirhind and to ensure no coercive action against the complainant’s business .
The CBI conducted discreet verification, during which conversations between the complainant and intermediary were recorded and a controlled call allegedly captured the petitioner instructing collection of the bribe. A trap was laid on 16.10.2025 at Chandigarh, and the co-accused was apprehended while allegedly accepting ₹5,00,000/- as part of the bribe. The petitioner was arrested the same day and the final report under Section 193 BNSS was filed on 03.12.2025 .
The defence argued that no recovery was effected from the petitioner, the case rested on electronic evidence and statements of a private intermediary, and that the complainant had criminal antecedents. It was further contended that the CBI lacked jurisdiction in absence of consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, and that the petitioner, being under suspension and already on bail in a separate disproportionate assets case, posed no risk of influencing witnesses .
The CBI opposed bail, submitting that recorded conversations, WhatsApp data, and the controlled call prima facie established demand and acceptance. It was argued that sanction for prosecution had been granted, though yet to be formally placed on record, and that material witnesses included subordinate police officials who could be susceptible to influence .
The Court observed that the offence under Section 7/7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly when attributed to a DIG-level officer, carries serious ramifications for public confidence in the criminal justice system. The material on record including recorded conversations, verification proceedings, trap proceedings, and recovery from the co-accused prima facie indicated demand and acceptance through an intermediary .
The Court held that at the stage of bail, meticulous examination of evidence is impermissible. The absence of direct recovery from the petitioner did not dilute the allegation of acceptance through an intermediary, which is covered under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act .
Noting that charges had not yet been framed, the complainant and shadow witness had not been examined, and further investigation under Section 193(9) BNSS was continuing, the Court found that apprehension of influence could not be brushed aside. The petitioner’s long tenure in the police hierarchy and institutional familiarity were considered relevant factors.
Relying upon precedents including State through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, and its earlier decision in Jatin Salwan v. CBI, the Court reiterated that bail in corruption cases involving high public office must be approached with caution.
Decision: The petition for regular bail was dismissed. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply afresh for bail before the Special Court after examination of material witnesses (complainant and shadow witness). Observations were clarified to be non-binding on merits .