Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Former Cabinet Minister Bikram Singh Majithia's Bail Plea

The Punjab & Haryana High Court today dismissed the regular bail petition filed by a former Cabinet Minister of Punjab in a corruption case involving alleged accumulation of over ₹540 crore in disproportionate assets, holding that the accusations reveal a deep-rooted economic conspiracy, extensive money-laundering channels, and ongoing investigation with significant international financial trails.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "The petitioner is one of the prominent political figures in the State of Punjab, and has been a Cabinet Minister in the Government for over seven years. The investigating agency has cited about twenty material witnesses, who have been termed vulnerable. In case the petitioner is to be released from custody at this stage, possibility of his influencing the further course of investigation, trying to cover up the questionable transactions, manipulating the record relating to the same, and influencing the concerned persons/witnesses not to cooperate with the investigating agency, cannot be ruled out."

The Court pointed that Majithia, is accused of serious economic offences. Investigation of the case has revealed huge unaccounted money in his bank accounts, as also setting up of a large number of companies through which the financial transactions have been carried out surreptitiously for his benefit. It has also come to notice of the investigating agency that money has been routed through some foreign entities based in Singapore and Cyprus.

It added that Majithia is directly or indirectly in control of most of these entities with immediate family members, and appears to be the key beneficiary. "The transactions as well as the assets accumulated by routing the money in the manner aforementioned are being investigated. All this has adverse ramifications for financial health of the State."

The FIR was registered under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Vigilance Bureau, SAS Nagar.

The FIR is based on a Special Investigation Team (SIT) report arising out of an earlier NDPS case (FIR No. 2/2021), where investigators allegedly unearthed massive unaccounted wealth, shell entities, foreign transactions, and suspicious investments linked to the petitioner and his family.

Senior Advocate RS Cheema, appearing for the petitioner, argued that, Second FIR is illegal and violates the law in Pradeep Ram. He contended that the allegations of disproportionate wealth were already part of the earlier NDPS investigation and had been examined at length before the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court, both of which declined to cancel the petitioner's bail in that case.

Opposing bail, Punjab AG Maninderjit Singh Bedi and Ad.AG Chanchal Singla submitted that the petitioner received unexplained deposits of over ₹540 crore through family entities SIL, controlled by the petitioner and his family, showed cash deposits far exceeding declared business receipts.

Though chargesheet filed, further investigation continues—especially into, offshore accounts, Chartered Accountants involved, foreign remittances, subsidiaries in multiple jurisdictions, the State added.

The State argued that releasing the petitioner would endanger the probe, citing threat perception to witnesses and earlier instances of interference during raids.

After hearing the submissions. relying on State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025), the Court held that when new facts surface revealing a larger financial conspiracy, a fresh FIR is permissible.

The Court distinguished Pradeep Ram, stating it applies only when new offences are added to an existing FIR—not when a fresh case is registered for separate offences.

The Court noted the complex financial structures, multi-layered investments from foreign entities, siphoning of funds, unexplained cash spikes during petitioner's ministerial tenure.

"As the investigating agency statedly came across new facts which appeared to be part of a larger conspiracy pointing to the petitioner's disproportionate assets and use of ill-gotten money, it was within its right to register second FIR and investigate the case. It cannot be termed a mala fide exercise or sheer political vendetta against the petitioner," observed the bench.

The Court accepted the State's assertion that releasing him could lead to, destruction of evidence, non-cooperation by crucial witnesses and manipulation of financial records.

Quoting Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI and Nimmagadda Prasad, the Court reiterated that economic offences are “gravity-laden” and require a stricter approach to bail.

While dismissing the regular bail petition, the Court directed the Vigilance Bureau to complete the remaining investigation within three months, observing that:

“The petitioner cannot be kept in custody indefinitely. However, release at this stage poses serious risks to the ongoing investigation.”

Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.S. Sobti, Advocate, Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate, Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Bhukkal, Advocate, Mr. Sultan Singh Sangha, Advocate, Mr. Paras Jhamb, Advocate, Ms. Sheenam Kamboj, Advocate, and Mr. Prince Bharol, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General, Punjab, with Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Madhur Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, and Ms. Kavita Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent.

Title: Bikram Singh Majithia v. State of Punjab

Click here to read order