The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia’s plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to grant him bail in a disproportionate assets case, but declined to grant him interim bail.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and N V Anjaria issued notice on Majithia’s petition and posted the matter for hearing on January 19.
Majithia is in custody in a case registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau, alleging accumulation of disproportionate assets to the tune of around ₹540 crore. He was arrested on June 25. The FIR traces its origin to an ongoing investigation by a Punjab Police Special Investigation Team into a 2021 drugs case.
On December 4, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Majithia’s bail plea, holding that the possibility of him influencing the investigation could not be ruled out. While doing so, the High Court directed the Vigilance Bureau to complete the probe within three months and observed that Majithia could thereafter seek bail.
The High Court noted that Majithia is a prominent political figure in Punjab and had served as a cabinet minister for over seven years. It recorded that the investigating agency had cited around 20 material witnesses, described as 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 said.
Appearing for Majithia, senior advocate S. Muralidhar told the Supreme Court that the petitioner had earlier been granted bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and that the apex court had dismissed the Punjab government’s plea challenging that bail order.
“In that NDPS case, they had filed a supplementary affidavit before this court saying they have unearthed evidence about money being received in the NDPS case. That same financial transaction is now used to foist a new case under the PC (Prevention of Corruption) Act,” Muralidhar submitted.
Before the High Court, Majithia’s counsel had argued that the FIR in the disproportionate assets case was illegal and registered in violation of settled procedure, solely to keep him in custody. It was also contended that the companies and entities named in the FIR had already been thoroughly probed by the state in the NDPS case, where the alleged disproportionate assets and cash deposits were described by the Vigilance Bureau itself as “drug money”.
The Supreme Court, while issuing notice, made it clear that it was not inclined to grant interim bail at this stage.
