The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the regular bail petition filed by Bikram Singh Majithia in a corruption‑related disproportionate‑assets case that alleges accumulation of over ₹540 crore through illicit wealth and money‑laundering channels. The Court concluded that the allegations point to a deeply rooted economic conspiracy involving shell companies, foreign financial entities, and complex transactions — all of which are under active and ongoing investigation.
In its order, the Court expressed concern that releasing Majithia at this stage could jeopardise the investigation. It noted that there are around twenty material witnesses, many described as “vulnerable.” The Court observed that if the petitioner were released, there was a real risk that evidence might be tampered with, records manipulated, or witnesses influenced, given his significant political influence and the alleged international dimensions of the financial transactions under scrutiny.
According to the prosecution, the case stems from a Special Investigation Team report arising out of an earlier drug‑related case where authorities allegedly discovered massive unaccounted wealth tied to Majithia. The Vigilance Bureau’s FIR charges him under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The investigation points to properties, investments, and financial transactions routed through multiple entities — including some based overseas — with immediate family members listed as beneficiaries. The wealth and transactions uncovered are claimed to have serious implications not only for the accused but also for the financial health of the State.
The Court also noted that the volume of documentary evidence — including bank accounts, investment records, company registrations, foreign transactions and suspicious routing of funds — is substantial and widespread. Granting bail, in such a scenario, could interfere with the ability of investigative agencies to secure and preserve material evidence.
In light of these considerations — the seriousness of the charges, the ongoing nature of investigation, the potential risk to evidence and witnesses, and the magnitude of alleged ill‑gotten assets — the Court found no merit in granting bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
The decision underscores the Court’s approach to economic offences involving large-scale financial misconduct: bail may be refused where the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses is tangible, and where the facts prima facie demonstrate a complex network of illicit transactions requiring thorough investigation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.