Mohali court junks Punjab Vigilance Bureau plea for Bhullar’s custody

A Mohali court on Monday dismissed as “infructuous” an application moved by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau seeking a production warrant against suspended Ropar Range DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar in a disproportionate assets case even as the CBI called it as an “attempt to frustrate its investigation”.

The court disposed of the matter, but said the Vigilance Bureau (VB) was “at liberty to move a fresh application, as and when required”.

“As both agencies require custodial interrogation, the issue can be resolved by allowing the Vigilance Bureau to question the accused once the police remand given by the Special Court, Chandigarh, gets over and when the accused is no more required by the other agency (CBI),” said the court.

As of now, the application “is dismissed as infructuous as the circumstances have changed since the filling of the present application”, the court said in its order.

Bhullar was shown “formally arrested” by the VB in the disproportionate assets at Chandigarh’s Burail jail on October 31 at the same time when he was in the CBI’s “judicial custody”.

Replying to the VB’s application, the CBI said it had already obtained Bhullar’s police custody till November 6. The CBI also maintained that the VB had taken a “contradictory stand by claiming to have arrested the accused during jail examination on October 31, despite there being no permission for the arrest”.

On November 1, the VB filed the application in the Mohali court seeking the production warrant against Bhullar.

Significantly, the CBI stated in the court that the “VB lodged a parallel FIR on identical allegations to frustrate the central agency’s ongoing investigation”.

The CBI arrested Bhullar in a Rs 8 lakh bribery case on October 16. Subsequent searches at his house and other locations led to the recovery of Rs 7.5 crore, 2.5 kg of gold jewellery, 26 luxury watches, two high-end cars, 100 litres of alcohol and documents of 50 immovable assets. Bhullar’s advocate, however, contested the recoveries by claiming that these pertained to ancestral wealth.

Over the past fortnight, four cases — under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Excise Act and two separate FIRs related to disproportionate assets (first by the CBI and then the VB) — have been registered against the DIG. The two disproportionate assets cases on identical charges have become a bone of contention between the CBI and the VB.