DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Probe requires custody, says court, dismisses Bikram Majithia’s bail application

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia. Tribune file
Advertisement

A local court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by Bikram Singh Majithia, a senior leader of SAD and former cabinet minister. Majithia, currently lodged in jail at Nabha, had moved the court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against him on July 31 at the Civil Lines police station.

Advertisement

The FIR was lodged on the complaint of SSP, Vigilance, Amritsar, Lakhbir Singh, regarding a raid conducted at Majithia’s residence by the Vigilance Bureau in connection with another ongoing investigation under a Prevention of Corruption Act case registered at Mohali.

According to the complaint, when the Vigilance team attempted to search Majithia’s house, the accused allegedly argued with the officers, instructed supporters to call the media, and even asked them to scale the walls and enter the premises, leading to a disruption of official duties.

Advertisement

The team claimed that 30-40 supporters created a commotion, obstructed the search and interfered with the functioning of the Vigilance Bureau. Videos were reportedly recorded by both the supporters and the police for identification purposes.

The counsel for Majithia argued that the case was politically motivated, and he is being falsely implicated in multiple cases to keep him behind bars. The counsel further argued that the FIR was registered over a month after the alleged incident, raising questions about its intent.

Advertisement

The Special Public

Prosecutor (SPP), while opposing the bail application, argued that the allegations were serious in nature and custodial interrogation is necessary to identify and trace other unknown co-accused present at the scene.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Gurbir Singh observed that the nature of allegations and the need for further investigation require custodial interrogation. The court concluded that the applicant does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, and hence, the application was dismissed.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts