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 CBI, holding that there had been no drastic or substantive change in circumstances since his earlier bail plea was rejected.
Justice Batra's Ruling
Justice Manisha Batra dismissed the petition after the court had reserved its judgment following the previous hearing on August 5. Bhullar's earlier bail application had already been rejected once before, on February 17 — meaning this marks his second consecutive setback in seeking bail.
The ₹8 Lakh Bribery Allegation
The case centres on allegations that Bhullar demanded ₹8 lakh as illegal gratification from complainant Akash Batta, routed through co-accused Krishanu Sharda. The alleged payment was reportedly sought in exchange for refraining from taking coercive action against the complainant's business, in connection with a case registered at Sirhind police station — essentially, using the threat of police action as leverage to extract money from a business owner.
For companies navigating this kind of pressure from officials threatening coercive action, having sound business advisory support can make a real difference — helping business owners understand their legal rights, respond appropriately to regulatory or law enforcement pressure, and avoid situations where they feel forced into making improper payments just to keep operations running smoothly.
According to the prosecution, conversations between Bhullar and Sharda were recorded during verification, with the CBI alleging that one such conversation indicated Bhullar had instructed Sharda to collect ₹8 lakh from the complainant. Following the FIR's registration on October 15, 2025, the CBI laid a trap in Chandigarh the very next day. Sharda was allegedly caught accepting ₹5 lakh from the complainant as part of the demanded gratification, and Bhullar was arrested the same day.
The High Court observed that the allegations, recorded conversations, verification report, and trap proceedings together prima facie made out a case concerning the demand and collection of gratification through the co-accused.
Court Rejects the "No Direct Recovery" Argument
One of Bhullar's key arguments was that no money had been recovered directly from him. The court rejected this, noting that it didn't weaken the prosecution's case at this stage, especially since the co-accused had allegedly accepted ₹5 lakh on Bhullar's behalf — a distinction the court didn't find legally significant enough to warrant bail.
The court also pointed out that material witnesses had yet to be examined, and given Bhullar's position in the police hierarchy, there was a genuine apprehension that witnesses could potentially be influenced or intimidated — a factor the court said simply couldn't be ignored.
Bhullar had also challenged the CBI's jurisdiction over the case. The court rejected this argument too, noting 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, though no witness has been examined so far.
Why the Court Denied Bail
While considering this second bail plea, the High Court found no sufficient change in circumstances that would justify a different outcome from the earlier rejection. Ultimately, the court held that there was a reasonable apprehension Bhullar could influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or otherwise obstruct proceedings if released on bail. On these grounds, the High Court declined to grant bail, dismissing his second consecutive petition.
FAQs
Q1. What is the main allegation against DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar?
Bhullar allegedly demanded ₹8 lakh in illegal gratification from a complainant, through co-accused Krishanu Sharda, in exchange for not taking coercive action against the complainant's business.
Q2. Why did the court reject the argument about lack of direct recovery from Bhullar?
The court held that this didn't weaken the prosecution's case, since the co-accused had allegedly accepted ₹5 lakh on Bhullar's behalf during a CBI trap operation.
Q3. Why did the High Court deny bail for the second time?
The court found no substantive change in circumstances since the earlier rejection and held there was a reasonable apprehension that Bhullar could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released.