Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

HC rejects suspended Punjab DIG Bhullar’s plea for regular bail

In his petition, Bhullar had claimed that the prosecution proposed to examine predominantly then official witnesses and the complainant in the case
Harcharan Singh Bhullar File

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed suspended Punjab Police DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar’s plea for regular bail in a corruption case.

Advertisement

Among other things, Bhullar had told Justice Sumeet Goel’s Bench that the investigations stood concluded and the final probe report had already been filed on December 3 last year, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

Advertisement

In his petition, Bhullar had claimed that the prosecution proposed to examine predominantly then official witnesses and the complainant in the case. The petitioner claimed he stood suspended from service, eliminating any plausible apprehension of influencing witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

The petitioner had also claimed that the complainant in the matter was granted protection as per the high court orders. The trap, as alleged, pertained to the co-accused. It did not pertain to direct acceptance or recovery from the petitioner. Besides, the petitioner’s production before the magistrate after more than 24 hours of being in custody gave rise to material illegality bearing directly upon the fairness of the process.

The petitioner’s counsel maintained that the alleged offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act carried a maximum sentences of seven years and the petitioner had already undergone substantial custody since October 17, 2025. “Continued incarceration, in the circumstances, would amount to punitive detention before trial, contrary to the settled principles governing bail, particularly when the petitioner undertakes to abide by every condition, including appearance on each and every date, non-interference with witnesses, surrender of passport, if directed, and any other stipulation the court may deem fit,” he said.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement