Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel has dismissed a regular bail plea by an Advocate arrested on allegations of demanding ₹30 lakh as illegal gratification for purportedly using influence over a judicial officer to obtain a favourable order in a divorce dispute. The Court held that the accusation concerns alleged interference with the judicial process and affects public confidence in the justice delivery system, requiring a cautious approach at the bail stage. Declining relief, the Judge noted that in corruption-related cases involving alleged misuse of influence, bail is not warranted merely due to factors like custody when the record discloses prima facie material and added that the Advocate’s release could raise concerns about affecting the investigation or trial, including witness influence.

As per the FIR, a written complaint dated 13.08.2025 was submitted by Harsimranjit Singh alleging that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.30,00,000/- for securing a favourable judicial order in a divorce matter at Bathinda, claiming influence over a judicial officer, and directing arrangement of an initial amount. Verification was conducted on 13.08.2025 and 14.08.2025, during which telephonic conversations were recorded; the verification report prima facie substantiated the demand. On 14.08.2025, a trap was laid and co-accused Satnam Singh allegedly accepted Rs.4,00,000/- as part payment; the transaction conversation was recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 14.08.2025 and remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2025.

Also Read: State Cannot Deny Regularisation Of Long-Serving Contract Staff Appointed On Sanctioned Posts Through Due Process; Legitimate Expectation Applies: Supreme Court

The petitioner contended false implication, lack of Section 7A ingredients, and that the alleged demand was misconstrued from a professional fee; the CBI opposed bail citing verification, recovery, and gravity.

The Court observed: “Indubitably, the allegations raised in the FIR in question are serious in nature which are not confined only to monetary gain alone. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate demanded large amount of money by claiming that he could influence judicial officer and secure a favourable order in a divorce case. Such allegations, if found true, do not affect only the complainant but have a wider impact on public trust in the justice delivery system.”

The Court recorded: “The material which has been placed on record before this Court shows that the complaint was first verified by the CBI before the FIR in question was registered.”

The Court stated: “The recorded conversations, the verification report, and the trap proceedings prima facie indicate a demand for illegal gratification and the collection of part of the bribe amount through a co-accused. At this stage, this material cannot be legally ignored or brushed aside.”

The Court observed: “The argument that the petitioner is not a public servant does not help him at this stage as Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act squarely covers any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means.”

The Court recorded: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that offences involving corruption, particularly those undermining institutional integrity, require a cautious and stringent approach while considering the grant of bail. In cases involving corruption and misuse of influence in the judicial process, such factors by themselves are not sufficient to grant bail especially when the allegations are supported by prima facie material. The petitioner is an Advocate with long professional experience. At this stage, it cannot be said that there does not exist a reasonable apprehension/concern that his release may affect the course of investigation or trial including the possibility of influencing the witness(s).”

The Court stated: “When an advocate, who is considered as an officer of the Court, solicits or accepts illegal gratification under the pretext of influencing a judicial outcome, the act is not merely a private fraud but sacrilegious affront to the judiciary as an institution.”

Also Read: ED Arrest And Custody Under PMLA Not Invalidated By Later ECIR Addendum; Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Court directed: “The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed for the nonce. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to apply for regular bail afresh, in the first instance before the learned Special Court, after PW-Harsimranjit Singh (FIR-complainant) and PW-Sandeep Kaur (victim) are examined.”

“Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case and as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate; Mr. S.S. Narula, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI

Case Title: Jatin Salwan V/s Central Bureau of Investigation
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC: 014657
Case Number: CRM-M-51882-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel