The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to former Punjab Cabinet Minister and Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia in a corruption case alleging the accumulation of assets grossly disproportionate to known sources of income, valued at over Rs 540 crore.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by Majithia against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had declined him bail in a First Information Report registered under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau.
The Apex Court was persuaded to grant relief after taking into account multiple cumulative factors, including the fact that the investigation had reached completion with the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner’s continued incarceration for over seven months, and the temporal remoteness of the alleged check period spanning 2007 to 2017.
The Bench also attached significance to the petitioner having been granted bail in an earlier prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in August 2022, a relief which had attained finality after the dismissal of the State’s special leave petition by the Supreme Court in April 2025. The Court considered that the present disproportionate assets case, though arising from materials surfaced during the NDPS investigation, was registered only in 2025 and did not involve allegations of custodial interference or non-cooperation post-arrest.
In granting bail, the Court clarified that the prosecution would remain at liberty to seek the imposition of stringent conditions from the trial court to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings, prevent witness intimidation, and ensure the accused’s availability during trial.
The proceedings before the Supreme Court arose from a petition challenging the High Court’s refusal to grant bail, despite the filing of an extensive chargesheet reportedly running into nearly 40,000 pages and citing 272 witnesses. Notice had earlier been issued by the Supreme Court in December 2025 on Majithia’s plea.
The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a report submitted on June 7, 2025 by a Special Investigation Team constituted to probe allegations emanating from the NDPS case. The SIT alleged that Majithia and his spouse had amassed assets disproportionate to their lawful income by allegedly exercising control over a complex web of domestic and overseas entities, including corporate structures with financial linkages traced to jurisdictions such as Cyprus and Singapore.
The prosecution case, as recorded by the High Court, alleged that unexplained cash deposits, inter-corporate transactions, foreign investments, and benami holdings were employed to acquire movable and immovable assets. It was further alleged that the petitioner misused his public office while serving as a legislator and Cabinet Minister to establish and expand interests in sectors such as liquor manufacturing, transport, and aviation through relatives and proxy entities.
Majithia, on the other hand, had contended that the corruption case amounted to a derivative prosecution based on the same evidentiary material as the NDPS case, and that the registration of a subsequent FIR was impermissible in law. He had also alleged political vendetta and selective prosecution, while emphasising that custodial detention was no longer justified once investigation stood concluded.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court had relied upon settled jurisprudence recognising that the discovery of distinct offences or a broader conspiracy during investigation could justify the registration of a subsequent FIR. The High Court had further invoked Supreme Court precedent holding that economic offences constitute a separate class due to their deleterious impact on public finances, and had expressed apprehension that release on bail at that stage could impede further investigation or influence witnesses.
While declining bail, the High Court had nonetheless directed the investigating agency to conclude any residual investigation within a stipulated timeframe, observing that prolonged incarceration without trial would offend constitutional guarantees under Article 21.
The post Supreme Court grants bail to former Punjab minister Bikram Singh Majithia in disproportionate assets case appeared first on India Legal.