Bikram Majithia denied bail; court fixes 3-month deadline for probe, says he can then seek release

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea for regular bail filed by former Cabinet Minister Bikram Singh Majithia in the corruption case based on a SIT report alleging accumulation of over Rs 540 crore through illegal entities. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, at the same time, set a three-month deadline for the investigation’s completion.

“The court is conscious of the fact that he cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period, as that would infringe his right to liberty. Also, the investigating agency owes a duty to the State to complete investigation of the case in every respect within a reasonable time. Therefore, it is directed that the investigation be completed within three months. Thereafter, the petitioner can seek his release on bail,” Justice Dahiya asserted.

The court observed that Majithia was accused of serious economic offences and the investigation of the case revealed “huge unaccounted money in his bank accounts, as also setting up of a large number of companies through which the financial transactions have been carried out surreptitiously for his benefit.”

Justice Dahiya observed it came to the investigating agency’s notice that money was routed through some foreign entities based in Singapore and Cyprus. The petitioner was “directly or indirectly in control of most of these entities with immediate family members, and appears to be the key beneficiary.”

The Bench observed that leads to track money trail were being followed. “Not only the role of these companies, but also that of petitioner’s close associates and financial experts is still under investigation.”

Referring to the stage of investigation and the apprehension of interference, Justice Dahiya asserted the investigators were said to be in the process of accessing crucial records regarding “questionable financial transactions from various banks, financial institutions, and other agencies”.

Describing the petitioner as “one of the prominent political figures in the State of Punjab”, the Bench asserted he had been a cabinet minister in the government for over seven years. The investigating agency had cited about 20 material witnesses termed “vulnerable”.

The possibility of influencing the further course of investigation, trying to cover up the questionable transactions, manipulating the record relating to the same, and influencing the persons/witnesses concerned not to cooperate with the investigating agency, cannot be ruled out, in case the petitioner was to be released from custody at the current stage.

Rejecting the argument that registration of a separate FIR was irregular, the court held that reliance on a judgment was misplaced. Justice Dahiya observed there was no legal bar on lodging a second FIR where separate offences came to light during investigation. “There is no absolute bar on registering a fresh case for separate offences on the basis of material coming to notice while investigating a case.”

The case has its genesis in the FIR dated June 25 registered under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Vigilance Bureau police station, FS-1, Mohali. The FIR was based on a Special Investigation Team’s report referring to alleged accumulation of over Rs 540 crore. Punjab Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi and Additional Advocate-General Chanchal K Singla appeared for the State along with the law officers assisting them.