Rajbir Singh Ghuman, Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) probe and search at his family residence in Sangrur. In his petition, Ghuman has alleged that the agency conducted the search without obtaining the mandatory prior approval required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The plea questions the legality of the investigation and the search proceedings, placing the statutory requirement for government approval at the centre of the dispute. The allegations are part of Ghuman’s legal challenge and have not been established by a court. The petition seeks judicial scrutiny of the agency’s actions and the procedure followed during the search.

According to the petition filed on Thursday, the CBI registered a First Information Report (FIR) at around 11.50 pm on October 5 and searched Ghuman’s family residence in Gharachon village in Sangrur district within the following 24 hours. Ghuman has contended that the agency proceeded without securing the statutory approval required under Section 17A. The provision regulates inquiries and investigations into certain allegations against public servants when the alleged offence is connected to a recommendation made or decision taken in the discharge of official duties. His challenge raises the question of whether the approval requirement applied to the circumstances of the case and whether the agency complied with the relevant legal safeguards before proceeding.

Ghuman has also questioned the timing and manner of the search. His petition states that the operation began at approximately 5.50 pm on October 6 and continued until around 4 am on October 7. He has alleged that neither he nor any of his family members was present at the residence during the search. The plea further raises objections to the search and seizure proceedings, claiming that only one independent witness was present. These assertions form part of his challenge to the procedure adopted by the investigating agency. The petition places the conduct of the search under scrutiny alongside the separate question of whether the CBI obtained the necessary approval before initiating the investigation.

Also Read: Festive Welcome Outside Punjab Residence As CBI Searches Home Of Bhagwant Mann’s Aide

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides a safeguard concerning inquiries and investigations into offences allegedly committed by public servants in connection with recommendations made or decisions taken in the discharge of official functions. Under the provision, a police officer cannot conduct such an inquiry or investigation without prior approval from the appropriate government or competent authority, as applicable. The requirement is intended to apply to allegations linked to official decisions and recommendations rather than every allegation involving a public servant. The law also provides an exception for cases involving the arrest of a person on the spot while accepting or attempting to accept an undue advantage in a trap case. Ghuman has argued that this exception does not apply to the circumstances described in his petition.

The legal challenge therefore centres on the applicability of Section 17A and the procedural steps followed by the CBI before conducting the search. Ghuman has maintained that the agency was required to obtain approval before proceeding because the statutory protection applies to the kind of allegations involved in the case. His petition also draws attention to the circumstances in which the search was conducted, including the absence of family members and the alleged presence of only one independent witness. Whether these circumstances affect the legality of the investigation and search will depend on the applicable law, the evidence placed before the court and the court’s assessment of the claims. The petition’s allegations should not be treated as judicial findings against the investigating agency.

The matter brings the statutory safeguards governing corruption investigations involving public servants into focus. Section 17A does not create a blanket exemption from investigation; its application depends on the nature of the allegations and their connection to official recommendations or decisions. The exception for on-the-spot arrests in qualifying trap cases is also relevant to determining whether prior approval is necessary. Ghuman has asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to examine the CBI’s actions in light of these legal requirements. The outcome will depend on the court’s consideration of the petition and the relevant facts. No conclusion about the legality of the search or the validity of the allegations can be drawn solely from the claims made in the petition.

Also Read: CBI Searches CM Mann's Office; AAP Alleges Political Motive