Punjab and Haryana HC Denies Bail to 70-Yr Old Advocate Accused of Demanding ₹30L Bribe for securing Favourable Judicial Order [Read Order]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied bail to an advocate accused of demanding ₹30,00,000 as illegal gratification to secure a favourable judicial order in a divorce case pending before the court of Bathinda, Punjab.

The petitioner, Jatin Salwan, is a practicing advocate before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A written complaint was submitted by Harsimranjit Singh, complainant, to the Superintendent of police, CBI, Chandigarh.

It was alleged that the petitioner demanded ₹30,00,000 to secure a favourable judicial order in a divorce case pending in the court at Bathinda, Punjab.

Upon receipt of the complaint, verification proceedings were conducted on 13.08.2025 and 14.08.2025, during which telephonic conversations between the complainant and the petitioner were recorded.

In the recorded conversations, the petitioner demanded ₹30 lakh. Upon completion of verification, an FIR was registered and a trap was laid by CBI.

During the trap, co-accused Satnam Singh, allegedly acting under the instruction of the petitioner, accepted ₹4,00,000 from the complainant. The petitioner was thereafter apprehended from his residence, and the bribe amount was recovered pursuant to a call made by him to the co-accused.

The counsel for the petitioner, R.S.Cheema, contended that the essential element of section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 was not satisfied as the petitioner is neither a public servant nor the judicial officer competent to adjudicate the divorce proceedings in question.

It was further contended by the petitioner counsel that the alleged money is the professional fee quoted by the petitioner for conducting litigation at Bathinda. The petitioner is about 70 years old suffering from cardiac ailments and anxiety disorder.

The counsel for respondent, Akashdeep Singh, contended that the petitioner being an Advocate and officer of the court, demanded illegal gratification by invoking his personal influence over judicial officers, thereby striking the very foundation of the administration of the justice and erode the public confidence in the justice delivery system.

It was also submitted by the respondent counsel that recorded conversations and acceptance of bribe amount satisfies the ingredients of Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption act.

Justice Sumeet Goel, observed that the allegations were grave in nature and supported by material evidence indicating the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification, thereby impacting the larger public interest. The court further observed that the appellant was also accused in another FIR registered under section 18/29 of the NDPS Act and section 489-C/120-B of IPC.

The court further noted that the petitioner’s medical condition did not entitle the petitioner to avail regular bail on medical grounds. Accordingly, the court dismissed the bail petition

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates