JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.RC0052025A0019 dated 16.10.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh.

2. The gravamen of the FIR emanates from a written complaint dated 11.10.2025 submitted by one Akash Batta (complainant), alleging that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was posted as DIG, Ropar Range, Punjab Police, had demanded illegal gratification through a private intermediary, namely Krishanu Sharda, for securing favourable treatment in FIR No. 155/2023 registered at Police Station Sirhind and for ensuring that no coercive steps were taken against the business of the complainant. The complaint was subjected to discreet verification by the CBI. During such verification, the conversations between the complainant and the intermediary - Krishanu Sharda were recorded and a controlled call is stated to have captured the petitioner instructing the intermediary to collect an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. On the basis of the verification report dated 15.10.2025, the present FIR came to be registered and a trap was accordingly laid on 16.10.2025 at Chandigarh, wherein the co-accused –Krishanu Sharda was apprehended while allegedly accepting Rs.5,00,000/- as part of the demanded bribe. The petitioner was arrested on the same day and the final report under Section 193 of the BNSS has been filed on 03.12.2025. 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 02.01.2026.

It is in this factual backdrop, the present petition has come up for receiving consideration before this Court.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is a decorated officer with an unblemished service record spanning more than three decades and the instant case is a result of motivated allegations. Learned senior counsel has emphasized that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the alleged recovery from a private individual who is not a public servant. Learned senior counsel has further contended that the entire case rests upon electronic evidence and the testimony of a complainant who, according to the petitioner, has criminal antecedents lacks credibility. Furthermore, there are material improvements in the version of the complainant particularly regarding the date and manner of the alleged demand. Learned senior counsel has also questioned the legality of the arrest of the petitioner by asserting that the petitioner has been detained much earlier in the day whereas the arrest has been shown in the evening and he was produced before the Magistrate beyond the statutory period. Learned senior counsel has canvassed that the Central Bureau of Investigation has no jurisdiction to register and investigate the present case on the ground that the alleged acts pertain to the State of Punjab and no consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has been obtained in this regard and, therefore, this foundational defect must weigh in favour of the petitioner while considering the prayer for bail. It has been further contended that the petitioner is already on bail in a separate disproportionate assets case and has scrupulously complied with all the conditions imposed by the Court. Moreover, the petitioner is presently under suspension and holds no official position, thereby eliminating any possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. According to learned senior counsel, the investigation stands completed, the charge- sheet has been filed and, therefore, the continued incarceration of the petitioner serves no purpose. On the stren