New Delhi | The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain the bail plea of an advocate, arrested for allegedly demanding bribe of Rs 30 lakh for securing a favourable judicial order in a divorce case, saying he was "selling the judiciary".

"You (petitioner) tried to sell a judge in the open market," a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta told the counsel appearing for the petitioner.

After the bench showed its disinclination in entertaining the plea, the petitioner's counsel withdrew it.

The plea had challenged a February order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which denied bail to the petitioner.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner said he was arrested in August 2025 and was in custody for last eight months.

The counsel argued that charges in the case were not yet framed.

"He is selling the judiciary... We have no sympathy for such people," the bench observed.

The counsel argued that the petitioner was 70-year-old and was having health issues.

"At the age of 69, he is selling a judge in the open market," the bench said, adding it was not a simple trap case.

When the bench said it would dismiss the plea, the petitioner's counsel requested that he be allowed to withdraw the plea.

The bench permitted him to withdraw the petition.

The top court observed the high court had granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail afresh after two prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, were examined.

According to the FIR filed in August last year, the petitioner had allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs 30 lakh from the complainant for securing a favourable judicial order in a divorce matter pending before a court in Punjab.

It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had claimed to exercise his personal influence over a judicial officer and assured that favourable orders would be procured.

A trap was laid by the CBI during which a co-accused, who was allegedly acting at the petitioner's behest, accepted Rs 4 lakh from the complainant as part payment of the demanded bribe.

The petitioner was arrested in August last year and a special CBI court in Chandigarh had in September dismissed his plea seeking bail in the case.

Before the high court, the petitioner's counsel had argued that he was falsely implicated in the case and the FIR was a result of a motivated and malicious exercise of power.

The CBI's counsel had opposed his bail plea in the high court contending that the allegations were grave in nature.