It must be definitely gracefully acknowledged that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Jatin Salwan vs Central Bureau of Investigation in CRM-M-51882-2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.:2026:PHHC:014657 that was initially reserved on 27.01.2026 and was then finally decided and uploaded on 02.02.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that when an advocate solicits or accepts illegal gratification under the pretext of influencing a judicial outcome, it is a “sacrilegious affront to the judiciary as an institution”. It must be laid bare that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sumeet Goel underscored that it is the Court’s duty to treat such transgressions as an existential threat to the sanctity of the institution.
Plainly speaking, the Bench sent a very loud and clear message of the dangerous implications of corruption making deep inroads in judiciary by observing that:
Where corruption takes roots, the Rule of Law is replaced by the Rule of Transaction. An age old adage – ‘Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long.’ – cautions about the moral decay the menace of corruption presents, it assumes a more harrowing significance when the menace of corruption casts a shadow over the judiciary; an institution whose very lifeblood is the unswerving faith and confidence placed in it by the common populace.”
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sumeet Goel sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner 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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the factual matrix stating that:
The factual matrix of the case, as borne out from the FIR in question, is that a written complaint dated 13.08.2025 was submitted by the complainant namely Harsimranjit Singh to the Superintendent of Police, CBI Chandigarh. It has been alleged in said complaint that the present petitioner, an Advocate practicing at the Punjab & Haryana High Court demanded illegal gratification of Rs 30,00,000/- for securing a favourable judicial order in a divorce matter pending before the Courts at Bathinda, Punjab, pertaining to the cousin sister of the complainant namely Sandeep Kaur.
It was further alleged that the petitioner demanded the aforesaid amount by claiming to exercise his personal influence over a judicial officer posted at Bathinda and assured that the favourable orders would be procured. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner insisted that the bribe money is never reduced and directed him to arrange the initial amount. On receipt of the complaint, the same was marked to Inspector Sonal Mishra, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, for verification.
The verification was conducted on 13.08.2025 and 14.08.2025, during which telephonic conversations between the complainant and the petitioner were recorded. The verification report prima facie substantiated the allegations of demand of bribe by the petitioner. In the recorded conversation, the petitioner allegedly reiterated the demand of Rs. 30,00,000/- and thereby reinforcing the demand and motive. Upon completion of the verification, the present FIR came to be registered on 14.08.2025 under the aforesaid provisions. Thereafter, a trap was laid by the CBI on the same day.
During the trap proceedings, the co-accused namely Satnam Singh, allegedly acting at the behest of the petitioner, accepted a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the complainant as a part payment of the demanded bribe. The conversation during the transaction was recorded, wherein co-accused namely Satnam Singh allegedly represented himself as a person sent for the collection of money in connection with the said illegal demand. After acceptance of the bribe amount by co-accused Satnam Singh, the petitioner was apprehended from his residence. The petitioner was made to call the co-accused, pursuant to which the bribe amount was recovered from the co-accused Satnam Singh.
The petitioner was arrested vide Arrest-cum-Personal Search Memo dated 14.08.2025 and was remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2025. The petitioner had earlier approached the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, seeking the concession of regular bail. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2025. It is in this factual backdrop, the present petition has come up for receiving consideration before this Court.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 6 that:
The preamble of our Constitution is not a mere decorative preface; it is a solemn covenant. The values of justice, equality and fraternity, enshrined in the preamble, are the pillars of our democratic architecture. Corruption is a corrosive acid that eats away these pillars. Where corruption takes roots, the Rule of Law is replaced by the Rule of Transaction. An age old adage—‘Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long.’—cautions about the moral decay the menace of corruption presents, it assumes a more harrowing significance when the menace of corruption casts a shadow over the judiciary; an institution whose very lifeblood is the unswerving faith and confidence placed in it by the common populace. Reiterating its earlier view in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal Vs. The State of Maharashtra; 2013 (4) SCC 642, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its dicta in a Five Judge Bench judgment in Manoj Narula Vs Union of India; 2014(9) SCC 1, observed thus:
“Criminality and corruption go hand in hand. From the date the Constitution was adopted, i.e., 26th January, 1950, a Red Letter Day in the history of India, the nation stood as a silent witness to corruption at high places. Corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 690 : 2013 (3) Recent Apex Court Judgments (R.A.J.) 11: (2013) 4 SCC 642 the Apex Court has observed:
“It can be stated without fear of any contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered. The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality.””
Most commendably and most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 8.1 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Senior Advocate on the fact of investigation having been culminated in the filing of Challan/Final Report and the petitioner having suffered incarceration for more than 5 months for an offence punishable (maximum) up to 7 years of imprisonment. Indubitably, in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, conclusion of the investigation and /Final Report, as well as, the petition of around 5½ months for an offence punishable with up to 7 years of Imprisonment (maximum), constitute factors relevant for consideration of however, they cannot be viewed in vacuum and nor do they operate as an absolute passport for enlargement on bail.
These mitigating factors do not preclude this Court from scrutinizing the their broader socio as an officer of the C pretext of influencing a judicial outcome, the act is not merely a private fraud but sacrilegious affront to the judiciary as an institution. It is the duty of this Court to treat such transgressions as an existential threat to the sanctity of the institution. The totality of the allegations; the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been perpetrated; and the position of the accused especially vis-à-vis the complainant; etc., are to be borne in mind while adjudicating the instant plea for enlargement of bail, by this Court.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 8 noting that:
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 practicing Advocate demanded large amount of money by claiming that he could involve 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 material which has been placed on record before this Court shows that the complaint was first verified that the complaint was first verified by CBI before the FIR in question was registered. The recorded conversations, the verification report, and the trap proceeding 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 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 age and professional standing of the petitioner, though relevant, cannot outweigh the gravity of the allegations. Upon directions issued by this Court, the medical condition of the petitioner was got assessed by the CBI and nothing has come forth which may entitle the petitioner to be afforded regular bail on medical ground(s). Furthermore, whether the complaint was actually competent to pass the order is matter of defence and will be examined during the course of trial.
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 witnesse(s). The rejection of bail by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, after consideration of the material on record, further persuades this Court not to take a contrary view in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances.”
Most rationally, the Bench propounds in para 9 holding aptly that:
Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations; the prima facie material indicating the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification; the potential impact on public confidence in the justice delivery system; the petitioner being an accused in another FIR i.e. FIR No. 83 dated 16.06.2016 registered under Sections 18/29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 489-C/120-B IPC at Police Station, Maloya, Chandigarh and the larger public interest involved, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds aptly in para 11 that:
In view of above ratiocination, it is directed as under:
- 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 the merits of the case and the investigating agency 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.”
In a nutshell, it is definitely entirely in the fitness of things that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh while displaying zero tolerance for corruption in judiciary stemming from a lawyer demanding Rs 30 lakh bribe for influencing judicial order has denied bail to the lawyer. It merits no reiteration that lawyers are officers of the court and if they themselves become corrupt then how can the judicial system function smoothly? In addition, if corrupt lawyers are not weeded out even after allegations of corruption are found true, then it is undoubtedly bound to have a wider impact on public trust in the justice delivery system as has been so candidly conceded even by the Chandigarh High Court in this leading case! No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
