Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Bail in Judicial Influence Bribery Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly rejected the regular bail application of advocate Jatin Salwan, who stands accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 30 lakh to influence a judicial officer in a divorce case. Justice Sumeet Goel, in a detailed order, described the allegations as exceptionally grave, stating they strike at the very foundation of the justice delivery system and erode public confidence.
Case Background and Arrest Details
Salwan, approximately 70 years old and a practicing advocate at the high court, has been in custody since August 14, 2025. His arrest followed an operation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on the same date under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The complainant, Harsimranjit Singh, alleged that Salwan demanded the bribe to secure a favorable order in the divorce matter of his cousin, Sandeep Kaur, pending at Bathinda courts. Salwan reportedly claimed personal influence over the Bathinda judge handling the case.
Investigation and Evidence
After verification, which included recorded conversations, the CBI laid a trap. Co-accused Satnam Singh allegedly accepted Rs 4 lakh as part payment, which was later recovered. Salwan was subsequently arrested from his residence. The court noted that prima facie material from the verified complaint, recorded conversations, trap proceedings, and recovery cannot be ignored at this stage.
Arguments Presented by the Defense
Salwan's counsels, R S Cheema and S S Narula, raised several contentions in favor of bail:
- False and motivated implication of the advocate.
- The demand was misconstrued as a professional fee for litigation after the case transfer from Sangrur.
- Section 7A ingredients are not met as Salwan is not a public servant and the judicial officer lacked jurisdiction.
- Material inconsistencies exist in the complaint and FIR.
- No independent corroboration, only conjectures.
- Advanced age, serious cardiac ailments, and anxiety disorders.
- Over five months in custody, with trial likely to take time and no need for further interrogation.
Court's Reasons for Denying Bail
Justice Sumeet Goel outlined key reasons for the denial:
- Serious Allegations: The case involves an attempt to influence a judicial outcome, with wider impact on public trust beyond mere monetary gain.
- Applicability of Section 7A: The section covers any person obtaining an undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt means.
- Health and Professional Standing: While age and professional standing are relevant, they cannot outweigh the gravity of the allegations. Medical assessment by CBI showed no ailment warranting bail on health grounds.
- Risk of Witness Influence: Reasonable apprehension exists that Salwan, as an experienced advocate, could influence witnesses.
- Pending FIR: Salwan faces another pending FIR under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and fake currency provisions.
- Custody Duration: Completion of investigation and over five months' custody are relevant but do not operate as an absolute entitlement to bail given the offence's socio-legal implications.
- Institutional Impact: Such acts by an advocate amount to a "sacrilegious affront to judiciary" as an institution.
Court's Final Order and Future Options
The court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to Salwan to seek bail afresh before the special CBI court after the examination of complainant Harsimranjit Singh and victim Sandeep Kaur. The observations in the order will not affect the trial merits. A lower court had earlier rejected his bail on September 1, 2025.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's zero-tolerance approach towards corruption, especially when it threatens the integrity of the legal system. The case highlights the critical need to maintain public confidence in judicial processes, with the court emphasizing that professional standing cannot shield individuals from accountability in such grave matters.
