DIG Bhullar’s conduit amassed Rs 1.2 crore: CBI tells court

During the hearing, CBI Public Prosecutor Narender Singh sought Sharda’s remand, saying interrogation and confrontation with digital data extracted from his phone and other documents “suggest that he has been acting as a conduit in corrupt dealings involving co-accused Harcharan Singh Bhullar and other senior public servants.”

The prosecutor further submitted that the pattern and timing of the Rs 1.2 crore in assets accumulated in the names of Sharda and his wife Honey Sharma during the past two years “strongly indicate” that they are proceeds of corruption arising from Sharda’s alleged role in facilitating undue favours.

Sharda’s defence counsel, advocate Gurbir Singh Sandhu, opposed the remand plea, arguing that the CBI had “arbitrarily” compiled an asset list and had been given sufficient opportunity to interrogate the accused. He said the allegation that the accused acquired assets beyond Rs 1 lakh during the period in question was unfounded.

However, the court, while granting four days’ further remand, held that “during the course of investigation, the CBI has laid hand on some material evidence from the analysis of the mobile phone etc. of the accused coupled with the jewellers to suggest that he has accumulated huge gold jewellery apart from cash deposits in bank accounts in his own name and that of his wife Honey Sharma during the last two years.” The court said further interrogation was necessary to “unearth the broader conspiracy, if any.”

Bhullar sent to five days’ custody

Seeking Bhullar’s custodial interrogation, the CBI submitted that after obtaining permission from the duty magistrate, he was examined on November 5 but failed to cooperate, giving “evasive and inconsistent replies.” The agency said Bhullar did not disclose the sources of seized cash, jewellery or investments, nor the identity of benamidars linked to property transactions. He was formally arrested the same day, and his family was informed, the CBI told the court.

Bhullar’s defence counsels, advocates H.S. Dhanoa and S.P.S. Bhullar, opposed the plea, arguing that the present FIR was registered in violation of law since a disproportionate assets (DA) FIR had already been filed by the Punjab Police Vigilance Bureau on October 29 (FIR No. 26), and two FIRs cannot be registered for the same offence.

Rejecting the defence objection, the court observed that the CBI “cannot be non-suited from the DA case in hand on the ground that the FIR by the CBI is of a later point of time than the FIR registered by Punjab Police Vigilance.”

“The unlawful accumulation and concealment of assets reflect a continuing chain of transactions yet to be unravelled. Since the FIR in hand is an offshoot of the trap case FIR, the CBI has every jurisdiction to carry out the investigation,” the court observed, adding that Bhullar’s interrogation was essential for a “fair and effective investigation” and to obtain “truthful explanation of huge recovery of cash, jewellery and luxury assets from his residence,” including locating undisclosed digital data, lockers and bank accounts.