Chandigarh, November 7, 2025: A Chandigarh court has sharply criticized the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB) for filing what it called a “very cryptic and poorly reasoned FIR” against suspended Punjab DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar, observing that the agency appeared to have assessed his 30 years of assets in less than half an hour.
The remarks came as the court extended Bhullar’s CBI custody by five more days, until November 11, in connection with a disproportionate assets probe.
A Tale of Two FIRs: The Jurisdictional Clash
The case has evolved into what the court described as a “battle of jurisdictions” between the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Punjab Vigilance Bureau. Both agencies filed FIRs on October 29, targeting the same disproportionate assets allegedly accumulated by Bhullar over his 30-year career. While the CBI made its FIR public immediately, the Vigilance Bureau reportedly kept its three-page version under wraps for nearly a week.
In a surprising revelation, the court noted that Bhullar’s defense had downloaded the Vigilance FIR from a mobile application, since it had not been officially uploaded. One page was missing from the version submitted to the court, and the Bureau failed to provide the original copy or verify the upload timing — further damaging its credibility.
Court’s Observations: “A Case of Investigation or Desperation?”
Special CBI Judge Bhawna Jain rebuked the Vigilance Bureau, stating:
“It is surprising that the case of the Punjab Police Vigilance is being presented on behalf of the accused. The silence of the Bureau’s prosecutor is telling — the reasons are obvious.”
The court questioned whether the FIR reflected genuine investigation or merely “an act of haste or desperation.”
CBI’s Stand: Following the Money Trail
The CBI, opposing Bhullar’s plea for bail, told the court that both Bhullar and his alleged conduit Krishanu Sharda were not cooperating fully during interrogation.
The agency described the case as “financially complex and multi-layered,” requiring further custodial interrogation to trace hidden lockers, benami assets, digital data, and money trails.
The CBI informed the court that during searches on November 4 in Patiala and Ludhiana, investigators seized ₹20.5 lakh in cash, luxury items, digital devices, and over 50 property documents, indicating an elaborate web of concealment and laundering.
Legal Determination: CBI’s Jurisdiction Upheld
Rejecting the defense’s argument that the CBI lacked jurisdiction, the court ruled that since the assets and recoveries were made in Chandigarh (a Union Territory), no state consent was required for the CBI to pursue the case.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, Judge Jain reaffirmed the Central agency’s authority in corruption cases involving Union Territories or interstate ramifications.
Expert and Institutional View
Legal experts say the court’s remarks go beyond procedural criticism — they highlight systemic gaps between state and central investigative agencies, especially in handling financial crimes.
The episode underscores how corruption probes in India often get entangled in institutional rivalries, political sensitivities, and jurisdictional boundaries, diverting focus from accountability and transparency.
