Chandigarh: A special court of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday dismissed the default bail application filed by suspended Punjab Police Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Harcharan Singh Bhullar in a disproportionate assets case. After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the court ruled that the statutory period for default bail must be calculated independently for each FIR, even if cases arise from a related sequence of events.
According to the CBI, Bhullar and his alleged associate Kirshanu Sharda were arrested on October 16, 2025, in a corruption case. The agency has alleged that Bhullar, acting through Sharda, demanded illegal gratification from a scrap dealer based in Mandi Gobindgarh. Following the arrest, the CBI conducted searches at multiple locations linked to Bhullar.
During these searches, investigators claimed to have recovered large amounts of cash, gold jewellery, silver articles and 26 expensive branded watches. The agency also seized documents related to immovable properties allegedly owned or controlled by the suspended DIG.
Based on the assets and documents recovered during the raids, the CBI registered a separate disproportionate assets case against Bhullar on October 29, 2025. The agency maintained that although the second case stemmed from evidence gathered during the corruption probe, it constituted a distinct offence under the law.
Defence Arguments
Appearing for Bhullar, senior advocate SPS Bhullar argued that the CBI had failed to file a chargesheet within the statutory period of 60 days, thereby entitling the accused to default bail. He contended that the calculation of the default bail period should commence from the date of registration of the first FIR in the corruption case.
The defence submitted that the disproportionate assets case was merely an offshoot of the original corruption FIR and not an independent criminal proceeding. On this basis, it was argued that the investigating agency could not extend the custody of the accused by registering a fresh FIR arising from the same transaction or set of facts.
The defence further alleged that the agency had artificially split the investigation into multiple FIRs to defeat the statutory rights available to the accused under criminal law.
CBI’s Stand
Opposing the bail plea, public prosecutor Narender Singh told the court that corruption and disproportionate assets are separate offences, governed by different legal provisions and requiring independent investigation. He submitted that the disproportionate assets case was registered only after the discovery of new evidence during searches, making it legally distinct from the original corruption FIR.
The prosecution argued that default bail is a statutory right, but it cannot be claimed by clubbing multiple FIRs into one for the purpose of limitation. The prosecutor also pointed out that the investigation was at a crucial stage and granting bail could potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Court’s Ruling
After considering the submissions, the special CBI court rejected Bhullar’s default bail plea. The court held that the disproportionate assets case was based on a separate FIR and, therefore, the statutory timeline for filing the chargesheet had to be reckoned independently from the date of registration of that FIR.
The court observed that the accused could not seek default bail by relying on the timeline of an earlier corruption case when the subsequent FIR disclosed a separate offence supported by fresh material.
What Lies Ahead
With the dismissal of the default bail plea, the CBI has received a significant boost in continuing its probe against the suspended DIG. Investigators are expected to further scrutinise the source of the seized assets and verify property records as part of the ongoing investigation.
Meanwhile, the defence retains the option of approaching the higher judiciary for relief. The case is being closely watched as it underscores the judiciary’s approach towards statutory bail provisions in complex corruption and disproportionate assets cases involving senior police officials.
