Bikram Singh Majithia Seeks Interim Bail Citing Threat To Life; Supreme Court Seeks Punjab Govt's Response

On Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia's plea for interim bail and apprehension of threat to life, the Supreme Court today suggested that he can be shifted to a jail in Chandigarh.

"We are saying shift him to Chandigarh jail, what is the problem?" remarked Justice Sandeep Mehta.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. On Majithia's apprehension of threat to life, Justice Mehta questioned as to how many attempts had been made against him since he was taken into custody.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, for Majithia, requested that the Court grant Majithia interim bail. He argued an application claiming that there was a threat, citing State's own intelligence report of January 3. On a specific Court query, he informed that Majithia has been in Nabha jail since June 2025.

"Rs.540 crores of public money [involved]", responded Justice Mehta. However Aggarwal clarified that as per the chargesheet, the allegation is regarding Rs.40 crores.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared for the State and sought time to file a response. He informed that the High Court was seized of the issue, where the State assured that all steps were being taken to ensure safety of the petitioner.

The matter was adjourned, giving time to the State to file a counter-affidavit. Before parting, the bench said that Majithia's request for interim bail would be considered on the next date.

Majithia filed the present petition against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which dismissed his bail plea in the FIR registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Notice was issued on the plea in December, 2025.

The FIR was registered on the basis of a June 7, 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 Rs.540 crores, disproportionate to their known sources of income, through a network of domestic and foreign entities. The allegations related to the period when Majithia served as an MLA 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 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 as chargesheet had been filed on August 22, 2025, running into about 40,000 pages with 272 witnesses.

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.

It 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.

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.

Case Title – Bikram Singh Majithia v. State of Punjab, SLP(Crl) No. 20469/2025