Home » Supreme Court seeks VB reply on Majithia plea, denies interim bail

Supreme Court seeks VB reply on Majithia plea, denies interim bail

by TheReportingTimes

New Delhi, Dec 20: The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Punjab Vigilance Bureau on Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia’s plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order refusing him bail in a disproportionate assets case.

The Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath declined to grant interim bail and posted the matter for hearing on Jan. 19, asking the Vigilance Bureau to reply to Majithia’s challenge to the high court’s Dec. 4 ruling.

The high court had rejected the bail plea, citing concerns that Majithia could influence the investigation if released. It had, however, directed the Vigilance Bureau to conclude its probe within three months and allowed Majithia to renew his bail request thereafter.

Majithia was arrested on June 25 in a case alleging the accumulation of assets worth Rs 540 crore. The FIR was registered following a June 2025 report of a Punjab Police SIT that was investigating a 2021 drug-related case.

He is currently lodged in New Nabha Jail, Patiala. A Mohali court had earlier dismissed his bail plea in August, after which the Vigilance Bureau filed a chargesheet running into more than 40,000 pages on Aug. 22.

Senior advocate S. Muralidhar, appearing for Majithia, told the Supreme Court that his client had previously secured bail in a case under the NDPS Act, and that the top court had rejected the Punjab government’s plea against that relief.

“The same financial transactions referred to in the NDPS case are now being relied upon to foist a fresh case under the Prevention of Corruption Act,” Muralidhar submitted.

The high court, while refusing bail, had observed that Majithia’s stature as a senior political leader and former Cabinet minister raised apprehensions of witness influence. It also noted that the investigating agency had identified about 20 vulnerable witnesses.

Majithia has maintained that the disproportionate assets case is politically motivated. He was earlier booked under the NDPS Act in 2021 based on a 2018 report of the anti-drug Special Task Force.

 

You may also like