The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the second consecutive bail petition of suspended Punjab Police DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar in a corruption case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, holding that there had been no drastic or substantive change in circumstances since his earlier bail plea was rejected.
Justice Manisha Batra dismissed the petition after the court had reserved its judgment during the previous hearing on August 5. Bhullar’s earlier bail application had been rejected on February 17.
₹8 Lakh Illegal Gratification Alleged
The case relates to allegations that Bhullar demanded ₹8 lakh as illegal gratification from complainant Akash Batta through co-accused Krishanu Sharda. The alleged payment was sought in exchange for refraining from taking coercive action against the complainant’s business in a case registered at Sirhind police station.
According to the prosecution, conversations between Bhullar and Sharda were recorded during verification. The CBI alleged that one such conversation indicated that Bhullar had instructed Sharda to collect ₹8 lakh from the complainant.
Following registration of the FIR on October 15, 2025, the CBI laid a trap in Chandigarh the next day. Sharda was allegedly apprehended while accepting ₹5 lakh from the complainant as part of the gratification demanded by Bhullar. Bhullar was also arrested the same day.
The High Court observed that the allegations, recorded conversations, verification report and trap proceedings prima facie made out a case concerning the demand and collection of gratification through the co-accused.
Court Rejects Argument Over Lack of Direct Recovery
The court rejected the argument that no recovery had been made directly from Bhullar, observing that this did not weaken the prosecution case at this stage. It noted that the co-accused had allegedly accepted ₹5 lakh on Bhullar’s behalf.
The court also noted that material witnesses were yet to be examined. Bhullar’s position in the police hierarchy raised an apprehension that witnesses could be influenced or intimidated, a factor the court said could not be ignored.
Bhullar had also challenged the CBI’s jurisdiction. Rejecting the contention, the court noted that both Bhullar and the co-accused were arrested in Chandigarh and that a substantial part of the alleged cause of action had occurred there.
Charges have already been framed and the trial has commenced, although no witness had been examined so far.
High Court Cites Risk to Witnesses and Proceedings
While considering the second bail plea, the High Court found no sufficient change in circumstances that would warrant a different decision from the rejection of Bhullar’s earlier application.
The court ultimately held that there was a reasonable apprehension that Bhullar could influence witnesses, tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the proceedings if released on bail.
On these grounds, the High Court declined to grant bail and dismissed his second consecutive petition.
