New Delhi— The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia’s plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order that denied him bail in a disproportionate assets case.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and N V Anjaria issued notice to the Punjab government on Majithia’s petition and scheduled the matter for hearing on January 19. However, the court declined to grant him interim bail.
Earlier, on December 4, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed Majithia’s bail plea, citing concerns that he could influence the investigation if released. The high court had directed the Punjab Vigilance Bureau to complete its probe within three months and observed that Majithia could seek bail after the investigation is concluded.
During the hearing before the apex court, senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Majithia, argued that the leader had earlier been granted bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Punjab government’s challenge to that bail order.
Muralidhar contended that in the NDPS case, the state had filed a supplementary affidavit claiming to have unearthed evidence of money transactions linked to the alleged offence. He argued that the same financial transactions are now being used to register a fresh case against Majithia under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Majithia was arrested by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau on June 25 in the disproportionate assets case, which allegedly involves the accumulation of wealth worth around ₹540 crore. The FIR against him is linked to an ongoing investigation by a Punjab Police special investigation team in a 2021 drug-related case.
In its order, the high court had noted that Majithia is a prominent political figure in Punjab and had served as a cabinet minister for more than seven years. It observed that the investigating agency had cited around 20 material witnesses, who were described as vulnerable.
The high court had stated that releasing Majithia at this stage could lead to the possibility of him influencing the investigation, tampering with records related to questionable transactions, or pressuring witnesses not to cooperate with the probe.
Before the high court, Majithia’s counsel had argued that the FIR in the disproportionate assets case was illegally registered and violated established legal procedures, with the sole intention of keeping him in custody. The defence had also claimed that the companies and entities named in the FIR were already investigated during the NDPS case, where the alleged assets and cash deposits were described by the Vigilance Bureau as “drug money.”
