Punjab & Haryana High Court terms advocate’s bribery for influencing judge as “sacrilegious affront”, denies bail

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in Jatin Salwan vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CRM-M-51882-2025; Neutral Citation No.: 2026:PHHC:014657), has declined regular bail to an advocate accused of demanding and arranging illegal gratification on the pretext of securing a favourable judicial order in a matrimonial dispute. The judgment, authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sumeet Goel, reserved on 27.01.2026 and pronounced on 02.02.2026, delivers a strong warning against any attempt to corrupt the judicial process through influence-peddling.

The Court emphatically held that when a member of the Bar seeks or receives bribe money by claiming to manipulate a judicial outcome, such conduct is not a routine criminal act but a “sacrilegious affront to the judiciary as an institution”, striking at the very foundation of public faith in the courts. The Bench treated this as an issue of institutional integrity and not merely a dispute about an individual offence.

Background of the bail petition

Statutory provisions invoked

The petition before the High Court was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in:

  • Case RC0052025A0015 dated 14.08.2025
  • Registered under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
  • Read with Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
  • At Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh

The FIR and subsequent CBI investigation relate to an alleged demand and partial acceptance of illegal gratification in connection with a divorce proceeding pending before a Court at Bathinda, Punjab.

Core factual allegations

According to the FIR, which is rooted in a written complaint dated 13.08.2025, the complainant Harsimranjit Singh approached the Central Bureau of Investigation accusing the petitioner–advocate of demanding a substantial bribe for fixing a court order.

As per the case materials summarized by the Court:

  • The complainant alleged that the petitioner, a practicing advocate at the Punjab & Haryana High Court, demanded illegal gratification of Rs 30,00,000/-.
  • The alleged purpose of the bribe was to secure a favourable judicial order in a divorce petition concerning the complainant’s cousin sister, Sandeep Kaur, pending before a Court at Bathinda.
  • The petitioner is said to have represented that he had personal influence over a judicial officer posted at Bathinda and could ensure a favourable decision.
  • The complaint states that the petitioner insisted on the full amount being paid and resisted any negotiation or reduction in the sum demanded.

On receiving the complaint, the CBI did not immediately proceed to registration of a case. Instead, the complaint was marked to Inspector Sonal Mishra, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, for verification.

Verification and trap proceedings

The verification stage unfolded over two days—13.08.2025 and 14.08.2025:

  1. Telephonic conversations between the complainant and the petitioner were recorded during this phase.
  2. The verification report, based on these recordings, prima facie supported the assertion that a bribe had been demanded.
  3. The petitioner is alleged to have reiterated the demand of Rs 30,00,000/- in these recorded calls, reinforcing both the quantum and the corrupt motive.

After verification, the FIR was formally registered on 14.08.2025. On the same date, the CBI laid a trap:

  • A co-accused, Satnam Singh, allegedly arrived to collect part of the bribe on behalf of the petitioner.
  • During the trap, Satnam Singh is stated to have accepted a sum of Rs 4,00,000/- from the complainant as part-payment of the total illegal gratification.
  • The conversation contemporaneous with the handover of money was recorded. Satnam Singh allegedly introduced himself as the person deputed to collect the bribe for the earlier illegal demand.
  • After the trap, the petitioner was apprehended from his residence.
  • The authorities made the petitioner call the co-accused, and the bribe amount was then recovered from Satnam Singh.

The petitioner was arrested vide Arrest-cum-Personal Search Memo dated 14.08.2025 and remanded to judicial custody the following day, i.e., 15.08.2025.