‘Serious economic offences’: HC denies bail to Akali leader Bikram Singh Majithia in disproportionate assets case

Majithia has been in custody since June 25, following the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) at the Vigilance Bureau police station in SAS Nagar (Mohali). The case accuses him of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, in violation of Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018.

The FIR stems from a report by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on June 7, 2025, probing an earlier narcotics-related case against him.

The court’s decision comes amid Majithia’s claims of political vendetta by the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government. His legal team argued that the corruption charges recycled evidence from the 2021 Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case, where he was granted bail in August 2022, and the Supreme Court dismissed a state appeal in April 2025.

Senior advocate R S Cheema contended that the new FIR violates legal procedure, as the state should have added corruption charges to the existing case rather than filing a fresh one to “keep him behind bars.”

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, in a 20-page order, ruled that registering a second FIR was permissible under Supreme Court precedents. Justice Dahiya quoted from the recent case of State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, noting that a fresh FIR is allowed “when investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.”

The judge clarified that the observations in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, relied on by Majithia, apply only to the addition of offences to an ongoing case, not to entirely new probes.

What affidavit on Majithia’s enrichment says

The prosecution, led by Additional Advocate General Chanchal K Singla, presented a detailed affidavit outlining “substantial evidence” of Majithia’s enrichment. Key allegations include:

• Unexplained cash deposits in family businesses: Analysis of Saraya Industries Limited (SIL), a company largely owned by Majithia and his family (with Majithia holding 11.63% shares), showed Rs 161.72 crore in cash deposits during 2007-08 and 2008-09, far exceeding business receipts as per cash registers. “There is no explanation for this,” the court noted, adding that the funds were used to acquire assets and siphon off money through other entities.

• Abnormal foreign investments: Companies based in Cyprus and Singapore, including Clearwater Capital Partners (Cyprus) Limited and Sindicatum Captive Energy Singapore Pte. Ltd., allegedly pumped Rs 196 crore into Majithia’s firms between 2007 and 2017. These investments yielded minimal returns — Rs 3.5 crore against Rs 35 crore invested in one instance — yet continued despite losses, raising suspicions of fund layering. In 2014-15, Clearwater transferred its 26 per cent stake in SIL to a family-controlled entity at a “throwaway price” of Rs 3.5 crore, implying a 90% loss that “may have been compensated through undisclosed or under-table payments outside the official financial system.”

• Benami properties and liquor business expansion: Majithia and his wife, Ganeive Kaur, are accused of acquiring properties in Mashobra (Shimla) and Sainik Farms (New Delhi) through questionable means. The probe revealed a “systematic modus operandi” to control Punjab’s liquor trade through SD Beverages Private Limited (SDBPL), funded by SIL despite Majithia’s resignation as director to avoid scrutiny. SDBPL’s bank statements showed Rs 29.96 lakh in cash deposits in 2008-09 against just Rs 1.7 lakh in sales, with funds routed from associates like Harpreet Singh Gulati to Majithia’s father for property purchases.

• Transport empire via benami firms: Majithia allegedly built a bus transport network under A2Zed Transport (later Patiala Express), in his wife and brother-in-law’s names, by acquiring 26 route permits through coercion and unaccounted cash payments totaling Rs 2.80 crore. Only Rs 16 lakh was traced through banks; the rest, about Rs 2.26 crore, was paid in cash.

• Patterns tied to political tenure: Cash deposits in SIL surged during Majithia’s ministerial stints (2007-2009 and 2012-2017), dropping sharply to Rs 3.5 crore in 2009-10 when he was out of office, then rising to Rs 127.90 crore in 2013-14. “The timing and fluctuation of these deposits suggest a possible linkage between the petitioner’s official position and financial activities of SIL,” the court observed.

The judge described the offences as “serious economic offences” that “constitute a class apart,” quoting the Supreme Court in Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 3 SCC (Crl.) 552: “Economic offences… having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole,” the court held.

The ruling said releasing Majithia, a “prominent political figure” and former minister for over seven years, could lead to tampering with 20 “vulnerable” witnesses or manipulation of records. The court cited his past conduct, including video-recording raids and threats by relatives to officers.