Probe agencies locked in legal tussle over DIG Bhullar's custody

A fierce turf war between the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB) has erupted over the custody of arrested and suspended state DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar, exposing deep friction between the central and state agencies.

While the CBI on Saturday succeeded in securing Bhullar’s five-day custody from a Chandigarh court, the bureau’s application for his production warrants before a Mohali court was deferred for hearing till Monday, leaving both sides locked in a legal and jurisdictional tug of war.

Bhullar, who was in Burail Jail since October 16 following his arrest in a Rs 5-lakh CBI trap case involving his conduit Kirshanu Sharda, was interrogated by the Vigilance Bureau inside jail on Friday under a Mohali court order.

The bureau then moved a fresh plea seeking his formal production for questioning in its own FIR registered on October 29, but the plea has been mired in controversy.

The application, sources said, contained contradictory submissions, claiming on one hand that Bhullar had already been arrested during jail interrogation (a legally untenable act) while simultaneously seeking his production warrant from court.

The Mohali Chief Judicial Magistrate reserved the matter for Monday, observing that the CBI must be issued notice before any custody-related orders are passed.

In a counter-move, the CBI secured Bhullar’s remand till November 6.The court accepted the CBI’s argument that forensic data from Bhullar’s two seized mobile phones contained incriminating chats with co-accused Sharda, including attempts to influence judicial orders and patterns of illegal monthly payoffs. The court ruled that his custodial interrogation was essential to trace the bribe money trail, confront him with Sharda’s disclosures, and recover hidden evidence.

Rejecting the bureau’s jurisdictional objections, the Chandigarh court upheld the CBI’s right to probe the case, noting that the trap, recovery, and key communications all occurred in Chandigarh, and hence consent from the Punjab Government under the DSPE Act was not required.

“Otherwise, interpretation would result in an absurd situation,” the order stated, stressing that the CBI’s investigation was lawfully grounded within the Union Territory.

In contrast, the Vigilance’s Mohali petition accused the CBI of “circumventing” state proceedings, arguing that the alleged bribe demand originated in Punjab and that the CBI, Chandigarh, lacked territorial jurisdiction.