The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday refused to grant regular bail to a senior advocate accused by the CBI of demanding a hefty bribe to influence a judicial order in a divorce dispute pending in Bathinda. Justice Sumeet Goel held that the allegations strike at the core of public faith in the justice delivery system and cannot be treated lightly at the bail stage.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by Harsimranjit Singh, who alleged that the accused advocate demanded ₹30 lakh in exchange for securing a favourable order in a matrimonial case involving the complainant’s cousin. According to the complaint, the advocate claimed to have personal influence over a judicial officer posted at Bathinda.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Quashes Dowry Harassment Case, Cites Duplicate FIRs and Lack of Evidence
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) verified the complaint through recorded phone conversations over two days. Following verification, an FIR was registered on 14 August 2025 under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A trap was laid the same day. During the operation, a co-accused allegedly accepted ₹4 lakh as part payment of the demanded bribe. The petitioner was arrested later that day and has remained in judicial custody since.
Senior counsel appearing for the advocate argued that the case was a misuse of criminal law. It was contended that the alleged demand was nothing more than a professional fee for legal services after transfer of the matrimonial case.
The defence also stressed that the petitioner is around 70 years old, suffers from cardiac and anxiety-related ailments, and that further custody would serve no useful purpose since the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed.
It was further argued that the petitioner is not a public servant, and therefore the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act should not apply to him.
Opposing the bail plea, the CBI submitted that the allegations are extremely serious, especially because they involve an advocate-an officer of the court allegedly seeking to corrupt the judicial process itself.
The agency pointed out that the demand was verified prior to registration of the FIR and is supported by recorded conversations and recovery of tainted money.
Read also:- No Bail for NDPS Accused: Delhi High Court Cites Commercial Quantity Recovery
“This is not a routine case of cheating. It concerns the integrity of the justice system,” the prosecutor argued.
Court’s Observations
Justice Goel made strong observations on the corrosive impact of corruption on institutions. The Court noted that corruption becomes particularly grave when it casts a shadow over the judiciary, whose strength rests on public confidence.
The bench observed that Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act applies not only to public servants but also to any person who seeks undue advantage by claiming influence over a public servant. The argument that the accused is merely a private advocate, therefore, did not help his case at this stage.
Rejecting the medical ground, the Court recorded that an assessment conducted under its directions did not reveal any condition warranting bail.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Divorce to Karisma Panigrahi, Clears All Cases After Mutual Settlement
“The age or professional standing of the accused cannot outweigh the gravity of allegations involving abuse of the justice delivery system,” the judge remarked.
Final Decision
After considering the seriousness of the allegations, the prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the broader public interest involved, the High Court dismissed the bail plea.
However, the Court granted liberty to the accused to apply for bail afresh before the Special CBI Court after the examination of key prosecution witnesses. It also clarified that the observations made in the order shall not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Title: Jatin Salwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number: CRM-M-51882-2025
Decision Date: 02 February 2026
