No Interim Relief for Bikram Majithia: SC Issues Notice on Bail Plea in Disproportionate Assets Case

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and N V Anjaria issued notice on Majithia’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court order which had dismissed his bail plea in an FIR registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court, however, declined his request for interim bail. The matter is likely to be taken up next on January 19.

Appearing for Majithia, Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar argued that the Punjab Government had misused the criminal process by registering a fresh corruption case on the basis of the same financial transactions that had earlier formed part of an NDPS case, in which Majithia had already been granted bail.

Muralidhar pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the State’s challenge to Majithia’s bail in the NDPS case. He submitted that during those proceedings, the State had relied on a supplementary affidavit claiming that certain financial transactions had been unearthed during the NDPS investigation, which were now being used to justify the registration of a separate corruption case.

“The trial court says the chargesheet is yet to be filed, so bail is denied. Four days later, the chargesheet is filed. Investigation against everybody else is complete. This is so unfair,” Muralidhar submitted, pressing for interim bail.

However, when the Bench agreed to issue notice, Justice Nath declined the plea for interim relief, responding with a firm “No, no.”

The FIR against Majithia was registered on the basis of a June 7, 2025 report of a Special Investigation Team probing the earlier NDPS case. The SIT alleged that Majithia and his wife had accumulated assets worth over ₹540 crore disproportionate to their known sources of income through a web of domestic and foreign entities. The allegations pertain to the period between 2007 and 2017, when Majithia served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and later as a Cabinet Minister in Punjab.

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

Majithia had contended before the High Court that the corruption case was merely an offshoot of the NDPS case and that the same material could not be used to justify a second FIR. He had argued that the prosecution was politically motivated and highlighted that the investigation was substantially complete, with a chargesheet filed on August 22, 2025, running into nearly 40,000 pages and citing 272 witnesses.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that registration of a second FIR was permissible where investigation revealed a distinct offence or a larger conspiracy. It relied on Supreme Court precedent recognising economic offences as a separate category for the purpose of bail.

The High Court also observed that Majithia, being a prominent political figure and former Cabinet Minister, could influence vulnerable witnesses and hamper the investigation if released at that stage. While declining bail, it directed the investigating agency to complete the remaining investigation within three months and left it open for Majithia to renew his plea thereafter.

Notably, a Mohali sessions court on August 18, 2025 had dismissed the regular bail application of former Punjab cabinet minister Bikram Singh Majithia in a vigilance probe that alleges disproportionate assets of around Rs. 540 crore accumulated during his ten-year tenure as MLA and minister between 2007 and 2017.