New Delhi: A Mohali court has denied bail to Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader and former Punjab minister Bikram Singh Majithia in a disproportionate assets case linked to a drugs case, underlining the serious nature of charges, “crucial and sensitive stage” of investigation, and the risk of witness tampering.
In its ruling Monday, the court held that disproportionate assets cases “constitute a class apart” and custodial interrogation remains the norm in economic offences with wide ramifications.
Bikram Majithia, the 50-year-old SAD leader, is a three-time MLA (elected in 2007, 2012 and 2017) from Majitha in Amritsar and the brother-in-law of party president Sukhbir Singh Badal. A former revenue and NRI affairs minister in the Akali-BJP government, he was booked in 2021 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, over alleged links to the drug trade.
After his anticipatory bail applications were rejected by courts up to the Supreme Court level, Majithia surrendered before the trial court in Mohali in February 2022. The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted him bail in August that year and he was released from jail.
While the NDPS case remains pending trial, the financial transactions flagged there formed the basis for a parallel probe into his alleged disproportionate assets estimated to be worth Rs 540 crore. An FIR was registered at the Punjab Vigilance Bureau, Mohali, against Majithia under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was arrested on 25 June this year.
He was sent to judicial custody on 6 July and his remand was extended on 19 July and then on 2 August.
On 18 August, Additional Sessions Judge at S.A.S. Nagar (also known as Mohali) Hardip Singh heard his bail plea and said the nature of the offence, the “crucial and sensitive stage” of investigation, and the accused’s alleged attempts to obstruct justice would not justify a bail at this stage.
The court emphasised that corruption and economic offences “constitute a class apart” and that custodial interrogation is the rule and bail is the exception in such cases.
Also Read: From Gorakhpur to Singapore & Cyprus, Punjab vigilance cites ‘money trail’ to seek Majithia’s remand
Case against Bikram Majithia
The FIR in this case accuses Bikram Majithia of accumulating assets “grossly disproportionate” to his known sources of income during his public life. This wealth was routed through a network of shell companies, subsidiaries, benami holders, relatives, friends, and associates, including foreign entities, it is alleged.
Majithia, however, claimed the case is politically motivated “witch hunting” by the “current political dispensation”. He argued that many of the same financial transactions were earlier labelled as “drug money” in the NDPS case in which he has been granted bail.
The Vigilance Bureau, however, argued before the court that Saraya Industries Limited (SIL), a company linked to Majithia’s family, witnessed an “exponential surge” in deposits during his tenure as minister between 2007 and 2017.
Between 2007–09, deposits of Rs 161 crore were recorded in the company, and a further Rs 236 crore in unexplained deposits between 2012–14, the bureau alleged.
Investigators alleged that SIL and associated companies were used to channel and “legitimize illicit funds” routed through benami accounts, proxies, and foreign entities. The prosecution submitted that Majithia’s high-value assets in other states, offshore accounts, and links at the international level are still being traced.
Ongoing ‘crucial probe’
The court noted the investigation is at a “crucial and sensitive stage”, with money trails, benami transactions, and foreign investments yet to be mapped. Majithia was accused by the prosecution of withholding information “exclusively in his knowledge” and that custodial interrogation may still be required to confront him with seized digital evidence and documents. Granting bail now, the court agreed, would “hamper the investigation”.
The prosecution alleged that Majithia had been “completely uncooperative”, supplying misleading information and delaying the probe.
He was also accused of threatening witnesses and officers, allegedly warning them that their careers would be ruined, and obstructing searches by inciting political supporters to create law and order problems on the day of his arrest. There were also accusations of tampering with evidence and attempts to destroy or conceal documents in the past as well.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) case, holding that bail cannot be granted to an accused capable of influencing witnesses or hampering investigation.
Legal arguments & court’s findings
The defence argued the present FIR was barred it is based on the same allegations as made in the NDPS matter. The court disagreed, holding that a fresh FIR is permissible if distinct offences or facts requiring a different probe emerge, citing the T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore cases.
The defence also claimed no inquiry preceded registration of the FIR. The court held a separate preliminary inquiry was unnecessary since documents scrutinised in the earlier NDPS probe had led to the current case.
It was alleged Majithia was not informed of the grounds of his arrest. The court found written grounds were duly served to him and his wife, satisfying legal requirements.
In conclusion, the court held that the complex layering of financial transactions, alleged use of proxies and benami holders, unexplained deposits, and the accused’s “obstructive conduct” justified continued custody.
The order also cited the 2013 Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI case, where the Supreme Court held that in economic offences with “wide ramifications and likelihood of tampering with witnesses and records, custodial interrogation is the rule and bail the exception”.
Dismissing the bail plea, judge Hardip Singh directed the order to be attached to the main file and clarified that the dismissal would not prejudice the merits of the prosecution’s case.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Blue Corner issued against Canada-based Satpreet Satta. What’s his role in case against Majithia