Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Of Former Punjab Minister Bikram Singh Majithia In Disproportionate Assets Case

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition filed by Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order which refused to grant him regular bail in a corruption case relating to alleged disproportionate assets.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice NV Anjaria issued notice on his SLP against Punjab and Haryana High Court order dismissed Majithia's bail plea in FIR registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court also denied Majithia's prayer for interim bail.

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar, for Majithia, submitted that the Punjab Government had misused the criminal process by registering a fresh corruption case against him on the basis of the very same financial transactions that were earlier relied upon in an NDPS case in which he had already secured bail.

He submitted that he had earlier been granted bail in the NDPS case and that the State's challenge to the bail order had failed, with the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition. He pointed out that during those proceedings, the State had filed a supplementary affidavit before the Supreme Court claiming that it had unearthed evidence relating to certain financial transactions allegedly connected to the NDPS case.

"The trial court says chargesheet is yet to be filed so I am not granting bail. 4 days after the trial court said this the chargesheet is filed. Investigation against everybody else is complete. This is so unfair," Muralidhar submitted.

When the bench agreed to issue notice, returnable within four weeks, Muralidhar raised a plea for interim bail. "No, no," Justice Nath said. The matter will be next considered on January 19,

The FIR was registered on the basis of a June 07, 2025 report of a Special Investigation Team probing an earlier NDPS case against Majithia. The SIT alleged that Majithia and his wife had accumulated assets worth over ₹540 crore disproportionate to their known sources of income through a network of domestic and foreign entities. The allegations relate to the period when Majithia served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and later as a Cabinet Minister in Punjab between 2007 and 2017.

In its order, the High Court recorded the State's case that Majithia exercised direct or indirect control over several companies, including Saraya Industries Limited and its subsidiaries, and that large unexplained cash deposits, foreign investments routed through Cyprus and Singapore based entities, and inter-corporate transactions were used to acquire assets and benami properties. The State also alleged misuse of official position to build interests in liquor, transport and aviation businesses through family members and front entities.

Majithia had argued before the High Court that the corruption case was an offshoot of the NDPS case in which he had already been granted bail in August 2022, and that the Supreme Court had dismissed the State's plea for cancellation of that bail in April 2025. He contended that the same material could not be used to register a fresh FIR and that the case was politically motivated. He also highlighted that the investigation was complete a chargesheet had been filed on August 22, 2025, running into about 40,000 pages with 272 witnesses. He contended that prolonged custody was unjustified.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that there was no bar on registration of a second FIR when investigation reveals a larger conspiracy or distinct offences, and relied on Supreme Court precedent on economic offences constituting a separate class for the purpose of bail.

The High Court observed that the allegations indicated deep-rooted financial conspiracies with adverse implications for the State's financial health and that release at that stage could hamper further investigation and influence witnesses.

“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 High Court had stated.

While declining bail, the High Court directed the investigating agency to complete the remaining investigation within three months and observed that Majithia could seek bail thereafter, noting that he could not be kept in custody indefinitely.

Majithia has now approached the Supreme Court challenging this order. Senior Advocate S Muralidhar appeared for Majithia before the Supreme Court.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 20469/2025

Case Title – Bikram Singh Majithia v. State of Punjab