The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant regular bail to Senior Advocate Jatin Salwan, who is accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 30 lakh for allegedly using personal influence to secure a favourable judicial order in a matrimonial dispute.
The bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed that allegations involving corruption aimed at influencing the judicial process strike at the very foundation of the rule of law and warrant a strict approach at the stage of bail.
The case arises out of an FIR registered on August 14, 2025, by the CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch, Chandigarh, under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution case is based on a complaint lodged by Harsimranjit Singh, who alleged that Jatin Salwan, a practising advocate at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, demanded ₹30 lakh to influence a judicial officer posted at Bathinda for obtaining a favourable order in a divorce matter concerning the complainant’s cousin. It was alleged that the accused claimed personal influence over the judicial officer and insisted that the bribe amount was non-negotiable.
Before registering the FIR, the CBI conducted an independent verification of the complaint on August 13 and 14, 2025. During this process, telephonic conversations between the complainant and the accused were recorded. According to the CBI, the verification report prima facie substantiated the demand for illegal gratification.
Subsequently, a trap was laid on the same day. During the trap proceedings, co-accused Satnam Singh, allegedly acting at the behest of Jatin Salwan, accepted ₹4 lakh as part payment of the demanded bribe. The transaction was audio-recorded, and the tainted money was recovered from the co-accused. Following this, Salwan was arrested from his residence on August 14, 2025, and was remanded to judicial custody on August 15, 2025.
Seeking bail, the petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated and that the FIR was the result of a motivated and malicious exercise of power. It was argued that the essential ingredients of Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act were not satisfied as the petitioner is not a public servant.
The defence further claimed that the alleged demand of illegal gratification was in fact a professional fee quoted for conducting litigation after the transfer of the matrimonial case. It was also submitted that the complaint and the FIR suffered from material inconsistencies, rendering the prosecution version doubtful. Emphasis was laid on the petitioner’s age of around 70 years, his alleged cardiac ailments and anxiety disorders, and the fact that he had already remained in custody for over five months with no further requirement of custodial interrogation.
Opposing the bail plea, the CBI argued that the allegations against the petitioner were exceptionally grave. It was submitted that the accused, despite being an advocate and an officer of the court, demanded illegal gratification by invoking alleged personal influence over judicial officers, which directly undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system. The prosecution highlighted that the complaint was duly verified prior to registration of the FIR and that the recorded conversations, recovery of tainted money, and trap proceedings collectively established a prima facie case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The CBI further submitted that neither the petitioner’s age nor his professional standing could be treated as mitigating factors in a case involving institutional integrity.
While rejecting the bail plea, the High Court made strong observations on corruption in the justice delivery system, noting that corruption is a corrosive force that erodes the pillars of justice, equality, and fraternity enshrined in the Constitution.
The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to reiterate that corruption cases, particularly those involving misuse of influence over judicial officers, must be approached with caution and seriousness. The Court also rejected the argument that the petitioner being a non-public servant disentitled prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that Section 7A clearly covers any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means.
The Court further noted that at the stage of bail, the material placed on record, including recorded conversations, the verification report, and the recovery of part bribe amount, could not be ignored or brushed aside. On the issue of medical grounds, the Court recorded that the petitioner’s health condition had been assessed and no serious ailment was found that would justify release on bail.
Although the Court acknowledged that the investigation had concluded and the challan had been filed, and that the petitioner had remained in custody for over five months for an offence punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years, it held that these factors could not be viewed in isolation in cases involving corruption affecting public confidence in the judiciary.
Taking into account the nature and gravity of the allegations, the prima facie material indicating demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the larger public interest involved, and the absence of any substantial change in circumstances since the earlier rejection of bail by the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, the High Court dismissed the regular bail petition.
However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail afresh before the trial court after the examination of the complainant and the victim witnesses, clarifying that observations made in the order would not affect the merits of the case during trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Jatin Salwan versus CBI
Case No.: CRM-M-51882-2025
Date: 02.02.2026
Counsel For Applicant: Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema
Counsel For Respondent: Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI
Read More: Rs. 1.57-Crore Customs Demand on Cancer Therapy Equipment Quashed Citing Time-Barred Notice: CESTAT
