Scrap dealer Akash Batta, complainant in the ₹ 8 lakh bribery case against suspended Punjab Police DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar, on Thursday identified Bhullar and co-accused Krishanu Sharda before a CBI special court. Sharda appeared through video-conferencing as he is in Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody in a money-laundering case.
He further alleged that Sharda conveyed that a monthly payment was required to prevent further police action or registration of fresh cases against him. The case relates to a 2023 FIR registered by Sirhind police against Batta under sections pertaining to cheating and forgery in an alleged fake-billing matter. Batta alleged that although no challan had been filed, Sharda approached him on August 5, 2025, in Sector 9, Chandigarh, and told him that Bhullar wanted money for getting the FIR disposed of, failing which a challan would be filed. The court directed that a production warrant for Sharda be issued to the superintendent of Model Jail, Chandigarh, directing his physical production on October 1. He is currently in ED custody till September 25. During the hearing, inspector Sandeep Singh, SHO of Mandi Gobindgarh police station, appeared with a sealed envelope containing a September 23, 2026 letter from the office of the Fatehgarh Sahib SSP. The letter stated that CCTV footage from November 7 to 8, 2025, was unavailable as the DVR had storage capacity of only 10 to 15 days and the data had been overwritten by the time of the court’s February 6, 2026, order.
As Batta appeared nervous, the court told him not to be afraid of anyone and to remain relaxed while giving his testimony. An initial demand of ₹ 1 lakh as “token money” was allegedly made, which Batta refused.
Amit Chauhan, state nodal officer of Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, Phase 8, Mohali, produced two sets of preserved data/records, which had already been placed on the court file on March 27. The court directed that a reminder be issued to the Airtel nodal officer to supply two copies of the preserved record by September 28.
The court said further examination of prosecution witness Raj Kumar, whose examination-in-chief had earlier been deferred, would continue after the complainant’s testimony is recorded.
