Supreme Court Refuses To Grant Bail To Punjab's DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar In Alleged Corruption Case

The Supreme Court refused to grant bail to the suspended Punjab Police DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar in a matter pertaining to alleged corruption charges by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Court was hearing a plea assailing the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on February 16, 2026, rejecting the application seeking bail for the offences punishable under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Previously, the Apex Court refused to entertain a plea seeking a stay of the CBI probe in two FIRs lodged against him in a disproportionate assets (DA) case.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi ordered, "We are not inclined to entertain for bail at this stage; however, we grant liberty to the Petitioner that if the trial does not commence within two months, he may again approach the High Court and such an application shall be considered on merits. "

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared on behalf of Bhullar.

Rohatgi submitted, "We are seeking bail. This is a case where more than six months have passed. I was a DIG." 

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "To that extent, the High Court appears to be correct...some material witnesses are required to be examined."

Rohatgi rebutted, "I am a DIG. I am not at flight risk. The allegation is that somebody has received money on my behalf. This is not a case of a trap...and he was supposed to send a WhatsApp...this is a very filmsy kind of suspension. I am under suspension. Six months have gone by. Complainant is under police security pursuant to the High Court...Investigation is completed, chargesheet has been filed, supplementary chargesheet has also been filed."

FIR emanated from a written complaint alleging that Bhullar, who at the relevant time was posted as DIG, Ropar Range, Punjab Police, had demanded illegal gratification through a private intermediary, namely Krishanu Sharda, for securing favourable treatment in intermediary, namely Krishanu Sharda, for securing favourable treatment in one FIR and for ensuring that no coercive steps were taken against the business.

The complaint was subjected to discreet verification by the CBI. During such verification, the conversations between the complainant and the intermediary were recorded, and a controlled call is stated to have captured the petitioner instructing the intermediary to collect an amount of ₹8,00,000/-. On the basis of the verification report dated 15.10.2025, the present FIR came to be registered, and a trap was accordingly laid on 16.10.2025 at Chandigarh, wherein the co-accused was apprehended while allegedly accepting ₹5,00,000/- as part of the demanded bribe.

The petitioner was arrested on the same day, and the final report under Section 193 of the BNSS was filed. The petitioner had earlier approached the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, seeking the concession of regular bail. However, the same was dismissed.

The High Court had observed, "The mere fact that the petitioner stands suspended does not ipso facto neutralize the possibility of influencing of the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. At this stage, it cannot be said that there does not exist a reasonable apprehension/concern that his release may affect the course of investigation or trial, including the possibility of influencing the witness(s). The rejection of bail by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, after consideration of the material on record, further persuades this Court not to take a contrary view in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances. A person who has held a senior position in the police hierarchy for decades is likely to retain professional relationships and institutional familiarity, which may have a bearing on witnesses and the course of investigation.

"The grant of bail in a separate disproportionate assets case also does not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail in the present case, which must be evaluated independently on its own factual matrix and the material available on record. In corruption cases involving public servants holding high office, the Court is required to exercise caution, particularly when material witnesses are yet to be examined and the possibility of influence is asserted on reasonable and prima facie tenable grounds",  it added.

The High Court had also said that the digital communication between the petitioner and the intermediary had also been relied upon by the prosecution. In the considered opinion of the Court, the veracity of such material shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. Accordingly, the High Court had dismissed the bail plea. 

He was appointed the DIG (Ropar Range) in November 2024. The Ropar Range comprises Mohali, Rupnagar and Fatehgarh Sahib districts. He is the son of former Punjab Director General of Police M S Bhullar. Bhullar had earlier served in many positions. He remained DIG (Patiala Range), joint director, vigilance bureau, and senior superintendent of police in Jagraon, Mohali and Sangrur, Fatehgarh Sahib, Khanna, Hoshiarpur and Gurdaspur. He had also headed a special investigation team, probing a 2021 drug case against Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia. The officer was actively involved in the Punjab government's anti-drug drive, Yudh Nashian Virudh.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court refused to grant relief to Bhullar. 

Cause Title: HS Bhullar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [SLP(Crl) No.6003/2026]