The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the second successive regular bail petition of IPS officer Harcharan Singh Bhullar facing prosecution in a corruption case involving an alleged demand of Rs 8 lakh.“The petitioner is alleged of committing a serious offence. The allegations in the FIR coupled with the material collected during investigation in the form of recorded conversation, verification report and the trap proceedings, prima facie make out a case for demand of gratification, direction or collection of the part of the same through the co-accused,” Justice Manisha Batra asserted before rejecting the plea.The bench added it did not find “drastic or substantive change in the circumstances from the dismissal of his previous petition”. The court added the apprehension that the petitioner might intimidate or influence the witnesses cannot be ignored, “keeping in view the position which the petitioner was holding in the hierarchy of police department”.The court also rejected Bhullar’s contention that CBI lacked jurisdiction because Punjab had withdrawn its general consent to the agency under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, noting that both the petitioner and co-accused had been arrested in Chandigarh and that “the substantial part of cause of action has also taken place at Chandigarh”.Bhullar was seeking bail in the FIR registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and BNS at the CBI police station, ACB, Chandigarh. His earlier bail petition was dismissed on February 17.According to the allegations recorded by the High Court, complainant Akash Batta submitted a written complaint on October 11, 2025, alleging that Bhullar, then posted as DIG, Ropar Range, Punjab Police, had demanded illegal gratification through co-accused for taking no coercive steps against the complainant’s business in a case registered at Sirhind police station and for securing favourable treatment.The bench was told that a trap was laid in Chandigarh on October 16, 2025. Co-accused Krishanu was apprehended while allegedly accepting Rs 5 lakh from the complainant as part of the gratification allegedly demanded by the petitioner. Bhullar was also arrested on the same day. The challan under Section 193 of the BNSS has since been filed.Seeking bail, Bhullar’s senior counsel submitted that the petitioner was on the verge of superannuation and had rendered more than three decades of service. He had remained in custody since October 16, 2025, and was no longer required for investigation as the same stood completed.The defence argued that “neither direct role of the petitioner in demanding any amount of money from the complainant nor his involvement is established” and that no recovery had been effected at his instance. The case, it was submitted, was based on unsubstantiated allegations and constituted misuse of the court process.CBI opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations of demand of illegal gratification were “prima facie established from the recorded conversations between the petitioner and co-accused Krishanu, WhatsApp record as well as the controlled call which was conducted during verification”.It was added that Bhullar’s previous bail petition had been dismissed on merits and that he had failed to point out any drastic or substantive change in circumstances. The trial had commenced, but material witnesses were yet to be examined and there were chances of the petitioner influencing or intimidating them, many of whom were police officials.Before parting with the case, the bench asserted: “The fact that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, there exists a reasonable apprehension that he may attempt to influence witnesses, tamper with witness or otherwise obstruct the course of proceedings, this court is not persuaded to exercise its discretion to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner.”