Impacts Public Trust In Justice System: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To Advocate Accused Of Demanding ₹30 Lakh Bribe To Influence Judicial Order

An FIR was registered under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

A Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held, "In cases involving corruption and misuse of influence in the judicial process, such factors by themselves are not sufficient to grant bail especially when the allegations are supported by prima facie material. The petitioner is an Advocate with long professional experience. 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)."

Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Akashdeep Singh appeared for the Respondent.

According to the prosecution, a written complaint was submitted alleging that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of ₹30,00,000 for securing a favourable judicial order in a divorce matter pending before the Courts at Bathinda. It was alleged that the petitioner claimed to exercise personal influence over a judicial officer and assured that favourable orders would be procured. The complaint was verified by the CBI through recorded telephonic conversations, which prima facie substantiated the demand for bribe.

Following verification, the FIR was registered and a trap was laid on the same day. During the trap proceedings, the co-accused allegedly acting at the behest of the petitioner, accepted ₹4,00,000 as part payment of the demanded bribe. The tainted amount was recovered and the petitioner was arrested on the same day. He has remained in judicial custody since.

The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, that he was neither a public servant nor capable of influencing the judicial proceedings, and that the alleged demand was misconstrued from professional fees. He also sought bail on grounds of age and medical condition.

The Court observed that Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act squarely covers any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means. The Court held that the age and professional standing of the petitioner could not outweigh the gravity of the allegations. It further noted that the material on record, including recorded conversations, verification report, and recovery of bribe amount, could not be brushed aside at the stage of bail.

The Court held, “Indubitably, the allegations raised in the FIR in question are serious in nature which are not confined only to monetary gain alone. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate demanded large amount of money by claiming that he could influence judicial officer and secure a favourable order in a divorce case. Such allegations, if found true, do not affect only the complainant but have a wider impact on public trust in the justice delivery system."

The High Court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Jatin Salwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2026:PHHC:014657]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocates R.S. Cheema, S.S. Narula, Advocate Sandeep Sharma

Respondent: Advocate Akashdeep Singh

Click here to read/download Order