Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Regular Bail to Bikram Singh Majithia in Disproportionate Assets Case; Calls Allegations a Deep, Complex Economic Offence
Case Name: Bikram Singh Majithia vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 04 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-51341-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the bail plea of former Punjab minister Bikram Singh Majithia in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, finding the allegations to involve a structured network of companies, offshore entities, unexplained capital inflows and benami acquisitions. The Court held that the petitioner’s influence, the scale of alleged transactions and the ongoing investigation into a broader financial web made custodial detention necessary at this stage.
Summary: The FIR was registered after the SIT, while investigating an earlier NDPS case against the petitioner, submitted a report alleging assets exceeding ₹540 crores disproportionate to known sources of income. The State detailed extensive financial irregularities involving companies connected to the petitioner and his family, including Saraya Industries, PSOPL, SAPL, NPPL and entities in Cyprus and Singapore. Investigators asserted that unexplained cash deposits, undervalued share transfers, foreign capital movements, and benami properties pointed towards illicit enrichment.
The petitioner argued that the FIR was politically motivated, that similar allegations had already been examined in the NDPS matter where he secured bail, and that the State was impermissibly recycling the same material. He contended that investigation was almost complete and pre-trial incarceration served no purpose.
The State countered that the present case involved independent offences, separate from the NDPS matter, and that the pattern of transactions reflected deliberate structuring to conceal illicit proceeds. It highlighted risks of witness intimidation, citing the petitioner’s political stature and past conduct.
The Court relied on precedents such as Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Nimmagadda Prasad, reiterating that economic offences with complex conspiracies and potential public loss warrant a stricter approach in bail matters. It held that the allegations, on their face, disclosed a sophisticated scheme of fund diversion and asset layering still under active investigation.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the gravity of allegations, the breadth of the financial network under scrutiny, and the petitioner’s capacity to influence witnesses made release inappropriate at this stage. The Court, however, directed the investigating agency to complete the remaining investigation within three months, after which the petitioner may renew his request for bail.