The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant setback to Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) stalwart Bikram Singh Majithia by rejecting his bail plea in a disproportionate assets case. The court expressed serious concerns that his release at this juncture could potentially obstruct the ongoing investigation.
Court Cites Risk of Influencing Probe
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, presiding over the case, underscored the gravity of the allegations. The bench observed that Majithia, being a prominent political figure in the state, could influence the investigation or manipulate records if released prematurely. The court noted that the material uncovered so far points towards "serious economic offences", warranting stricter scrutiny at the bail stage.
Dismissing the defense's argument that the Vigilance Bureau had flouted proper procedure in filing the FIR, Justice Dahiya clarified the legal position. The court ruled that there is no prohibition on registering a fresh case if new facts emerge, suggesting a larger conspiracy involving amassing assets beyond known income and utilizing illicit funds. The bench explicitly stated that such an action cannot be labeled as mala fide or purely political vendetta.
Economic Offences Require Stricter Scrutiny
The High Court emphasized that economic offences constitute a distinct category of crime, necessitating a more rigorous evaluation when considering bail. This legal principle played a pivotal role in the court's decision to keep Majithia in custody for the time being.
However, acknowledging the need for a timely investigation, the court has issued a directive to the investigating agency. The probe must be completed within a period of three months. The order provides a clear pathway for Majithia to seek bail again once this stipulated timeframe has elapsed, linking his potential relief to the progress of the investigation.
Implications and Next Steps
This ruling intensifies the legal challenges for the senior Akali Dal leader and marks a crucial development in the case pursued by the state's Vigilance Bureau. The court's firm stance on the nature of economic crimes and the potential for evidence tampering by influential accused sets a notable precedent. All eyes will now be on the investigating agency to conclude its probe within the court-mandated three-month deadline, after which the political veteran can approach the court for bail once more.
