The Supreme Court on Monday (January 19, 2026) agreed to consider an interim bail plea filed by Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Bikram Singh Majithia in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly amassing disproportionate assets exceeding ₹540 crore. The court also indicated that it would consider shifting him to a prison in Chandigarh to address any perceived threat to his safety.
Mr. Majithia, who is currently lodged in Nabha Jail in Patiala, was arrested in June last year by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau in connection with the disproportionate assets case. He is the brother-in-law of former Punjab Chief Minister and SAD president Sukhbir Singh Badal.
Senior advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, appearing for Mr. Majithia, informed a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that there was a “grave threat” to his client’s life. He relied on a State intelligence report dated January 3, which, according to him, acknowledged the existence of such a threat.
“Please see the State’s own intelligence report dated January 3, 2026. Their officers themselves have recorded that there is a threat,” Mr. Aggarwal said.
Justice Mehta, however, sought specific particulars and asked whether any attempt had been made on Mr. Majithia’s life while he was in custody. “You allege that there is a threat to life. Since when have you been in prison? How many attempts on your life have been made?” he asked.
In response, Mr. Aggarwal informed the court that his client had been in custody at Nabha Jail since June last year.
Justice Mehta then indicated that the Bench would consider shifting Mr. Majithia to a prison in Chandigarh or another State to mitigate any threat. “We will have him shifted to another State so that there is no threat,” the judge remarked.
Mr. Aggarwal, however, urged the Bench to take up the interim bail plea first, stating that his client posed no flight risk. “Please consider interim bail. I am not going to run away,” he said.
At this point, Justice Mehta observed that the case involved “₹540 crore of public money”. Mr. Aggarwal, however, clarified that, according to the chargesheet, the allegation was confined to ₹40 crore.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the State, sought time to file a response. He further informed the Bench that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was already seized of the matter and that the State Government had assured the High Court that all necessary steps were being taken to ensure the petitioner’s safety.
Accordingly, the Bench granted the State Government two weeks to file its response and posted the matter for further hearing on February 2.
The corruption case was registered on the basis of a June 2025 report submitted by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), which probed an earlier First Information Report (FIR) registered against Mr. Majithia and others under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The SIT report alleged that Mr. Majithia and his wife had accumulated wealth exceeding ₹540 crore through illegal entities.
Denying him bail, the High Court had said that the material placed by the prosecution disclosed a prima facie case indicating that he possessed large amounts of unaccounted money in his bank accounts. However, the court had directed that the investigation be completed in three months.
“The petitioner is accused of serious economic offences. Investigation of the case has revealed large amounts of unaccounted money in his bank accounts, as well as the setting up of a large number of companies through which financial transactions have been carried out surreptitiously for his benefit. It has also come to the notice of the investigating agency that money has been routed through some foreign entities based in Singapore and Cyprus”, the High Court had ruled.
Highlighting the need to safeguard the integrity of the investigation, the High Court had also noted that the investigating agency had cited around twenty material witnesses who were considered vulnerable.
“In case the petitioner is to be released from custody at this stage, the possibility of his influencing the further course of investigation, trying to cover up the questionable transactions, manipulating the record relating to the same, and influencing the concerned persons/witnesses not to cooperate with the investigating agency, cannot be ruled out”, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, had said in a 20-page order.
Published – January 19, 2026 09:27 pm IST
