Suspended DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar moves HC, challenges arrest by CBI in graft case
In his first petition, Bhullar challenged the CBI's authority to register the case. He argued that his arrest was not done according to the rules.
PTC News Desk: Suspended DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar has moved Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging FIRs registered by the CBI in alleged corruption and disproportionate assets case against him.
The CBI arrested Bhullar and his alleged associate Kirshanu Sharda on October 16 for allegedly demanding a bribe from a scrap dealer. According to the first FIR, Bhullar was accused of asking complainant Naresh Batta from Mandi Gobindgarh for illegal payments through Kirshanu Sharda.
Batta claimed that Bhullar demanded ₹8 lakh, through Kirshanu, to settle a 2023 FIR registered at the Sirhind police station and to ensure that no further action was taken against him. This FIR was filed under Sections 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Later, on October 29, the CBI filed a second FIR against Bhullar for allegedly owning assets beyond his known income. The agency said it opened this disproportionate assets case based on documents recovered during raids, including details of properties, gold jewellery and cash.
In his first petition, Bhullar challenged the CBI's authority to register the case. He argued that his arrest was not done according to the rules. Since he was posted in Punjab, he said the CBI needed permission from the Punjab Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, but no such approval was taken. He also claimed that the CBI office in Chandigarh could not register the FIR because the alleged offence did not occur there. The bribery allegation, he noted, related to an FIR from the Sirhind police station in Punjab. Therefore, he argued, the CBI in Chandigarh had no jurisdiction.
Regarding the items recovered in Chandigarh, Bhullar said they were not taken from his possession. He also pointed out that Punjab had already withdrawn its general consent to the CBI.
Bhullar further challenged the second FIR, saying that two FIRs cannot be filed for the same offence. He argued that the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB) had already registered an FIR for the same allegations before the CBI did. Since the VB’s FIR came first, he said the CBI’s FIR should be cancelled. Interestingly, both FIRs were filed within about half an hour on October 29—the VB noted receiving information at 10:35 am, while the CBI registered its FIR at 12:30 pm.