Suspended DIG Bhullar moves HC, challenges arrest, CBI FIRs in graft case

Suspended DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging two FIRs registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in alleged corruption and disproportionate assets cases against him.

The CBI had arrested Bhullar and his alleged aide Kirshanu Sharda on October 16 for allegedly seeking bribe from a scrap dealer. As per the first FIR, Bhullar was allegedly seeking illegal payments from complainant Naresh Batta of Mandi Gobindgarh through his aide Kirshanu Sharda.

The complainant alleged that Bhullar demanded a bribe of Rs 8 lakh through Kirshanu to settle a 2023 FIR lodged at the Sirhind police station and to ensure no further coercive action was taken against him. The FIR was lodged under Sections 61(2) BNS and 7 and 7A of the PC Act.

The CBI registered a second FIR on October 29 against Bhullar for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The agency claimed that the DA case was registered on the basis of documents relating to properties, gold jewellery and cash recovered from his house during raids.

In the first petition, Bhullar has challenged the CBI’s jurisdiction to register the case. He claimed his arrest was not carried out in accordance with rules. Since he had been working in Punjab, he said, the CBI was required to obtain permission from the Punjab Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, but no such consent was taken.

He further claimed that the FIR could not have been registered by CBI, Chandigarh, as the alleged offence did not take place in the city and, without prior approval from the Punjab Government, he could not have been arrested. The alleged bribery demand, he pointed out, pertained to FIR No. 155 of 2023 at the Sirhind police station in Punjab. He said since the origin of the entire transaction was in Punjab, the CBI, Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction to register the FIR.

As for the recovery made in Chandigarh, he said it was not recovered from him. He also noted that Punjab had withdrawn the notification granting general consent to the CBI.

Bhullar also challenged the second FIR, arguing that no two FIRs could be registered for the same offence. He said prior to the CBI’s FIR, the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB) had already registered an FIR for the same offence and, since the VB FIR came first, the CBI’s FIR should be quashed. Notably, both agencies registered their FIRs within half an hour of each other on October 29, with the VB recording “information received” at 10.35 am and the CBI registering its FIR at 12.30 pm.