Kapoor allegedly accepted a bribe of Rs 1 crore from the family members of a woman named Poonam Rajan, who was in custody in Amritsar jail. The said amount was allegedly given to him through different bank accounts via ASI Singh.

The counsel for petitioners, Senior Advocate Bipan Ghai with Nikhil Ghai and Siddhant Arora, submitted that the duo were falsely implicated in the case.

Further, they submitted that the alleged incident occurred in 2018 but the FIR was only lodged in 2022.

The counsel further submitted that as the challan in the case already stands presented, further detention of the petitioners will not serve any purpose, particularly as sanction with respect to Harjinder Singh is still awaited.

While opposing the plea, the counsel for the state argued that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which stand substantiated from the evidence collected during the course of the investigation, and clearly show that the cheques signed by Rajan’s mother Prem Lata were encashed through various people, who after encashing the same, handed over the amount to ASI Singh, who further passed it onto Kapoor.

The state counsel also informed that the petitioners have been behind bars for about seven-and-a-half months and although the challan stands presented, charges are yet to be framed as sanction with respect to one of the accused is still awaited. The counsel further informed that Kapoor is involved in one more case registered under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The counsel for Kapoor, however, clarified that the FIR under Section 376 of IPC was lodged pursuant to directions issued by the Punjab state police authority and in respect of which, proceedings have been stayed by this court.

The Court headed by Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill said, “It is no doubt correct that specific allegations have been levelled against the accused and the police claim to have collected sufficient evidence to establish the said allegations. However, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners have been behind bars for a substantial period of about seven-and-a-half months. The trial has not even commenced till date inasmuch as charges have not been framed for want of sanction in respect of one of the accused. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period.”