CRM-M-51341-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-51341-2025

Reserved on: 20.11.2025

Pronounced on: 04.12.2025

Uploaded on: 04.12.2025

Bikram Singh Majithia ….Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. D.S. Sobti, Advocate,

Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate,

Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Siddharth Bhukkal, Advocate,

Mr. Sultan Singh Sangha, Advocate,

Mr. Paras Jhamb, Advocate,

Ms. Sheenam Kamboj, Advocate, and

Mr. Prince Bharol, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General, Punjab, with

Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,

Mr. Madhur Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,

Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,

and Ms. Kavita Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

The petition has been filed for grant of regular bail in case FIR

No.22 dated 25.06.2025, registered under Sections 13(1)(b) read with

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the PC Act’), at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, FS-1, S.A.S. Nagar.

CRM-M-51341-2025 2

2. The FIR in question has been lodged on the basis of a report,

dated 07.06.2025, of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating an

earlier FIR against the petitioner and others, bearing no.2, dated 20.12.2021,

registered under Sections 25, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS

Act’), at Police Station Punjab State Crime, S.A.S. Nagar. The report

mentioned accumulation of more than `540 crores of wealth by the

petitioner and his wife through illegal entities. The relevant extract of the

FIR reads as under:

… In the report of Special Investigation Team bearing

No.292/SIT dated 07.06.2025, it has been written that “FIR No.

02 dated 20.12.2021 registered under sections 25, 27-A and 29

of NDPS Act 1985 at Punjab State Crime Police Station, S.A.S.

Nagar against Bikram Singh Majithia and others is being

investigated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and has

uncovered substantial evidence indicating acquisition of assets

disproportionate to the known sources of income of Bikram

Singh Majithia and his wife Ganieve Kaur. That Bikram Singh

Majithia has accumulated vast wealth, properties, and business

interests in his name or in the name of his family members

which appear to be grossly disproportionate to his legitimate

income. In the course of investigation the material collected

establishes that the assets have been acquired through proceeds

of illegal activities and it amounts to illicit enrichment of

resources.

In 2007. Bikram Singh Majithia became an elected

member of the legislature and subsequently a Cabinet Minister

in the State Government of Punjab. Evidence indicates that

during his tenure as a Cabinet Minister in the State Government

of Punjab, there has been disproportionate increase in the assets

CRM-M-51341-2025 3

of Bikram Singh Majithia, his wife, wherein they have acquired

huge wealth from the unknown and illegal means.

2.1 The FIR further details of ten companies under the petitioner’s

direct or indirect control where questionable transactions have been noticed.

The investigation also revealed that huge cash had been deposited in the

bank accounts of Saraya Industries Limited (SIL) during the period the

petitioner was Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) and a Cabinet

Minister in the State of Punjab. The amount has allegedly been utilised for

acquiring assets; besides, other suspicious entities have been created for

siphoning of the money.

3. Mr. Cheema, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended

that the case essentially arises out of the earlier case registered against the

petitioner, i.e., FIR No.2 dated 20.12.2021, under Sections 25, 27-A and 29

of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Punjab State Crime, S.A.S. Nagar

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS case’). He has been granted regular

bail in that case by a Division Bench of this Court vide detailed order dated

10.08.2022, specifically holding that, “… we are satisfied that reasonable

grounds exist to believe that petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged

against him in FIR No.002 of 2021 dt. 21.12.2021 and he is not likely to

commit such offences while on bail.” The order was challenged before the

Supreme Court by the State, but the SLP was dismissed on 25.04.2025.

3.1. Learned senior counsel further contends that the

companies/entities mentioned in the instant FIR have been thoroughly

investigated by the State in the NDPS case as well. In that case the vigilance

mentioned the alleged disproportionate assets and cash deposits in the

petitioner’s as well as the companies’ accounts, as drug money. The same

CRM-M-51341-2025 4

transactions have now been referred to as unaccounted money for registering

the case under the PC Act. In this regard, he has made specific reference to

the affidavits filed on behalf of the vigilance before the Supreme Court,

dated 22.04.2024, 20.07.2024, 16.09.2024 and 10.02.2025, Annexures P-4,

P-6, P-8 and P-10, respectively. The affidavits specifically state that the

petitioner allegedly facilitated, harbored and financed international drug

racket through his co-accused in the NDPS case. He is also alleged to have

provided conveyance and premises to them. A huge money trail was

allegedly found linking him directly to the offences alleged, and on that

basis cancellation of his bail was sought. But the plea was not accepted and,

as aforementioned, the SLP was dismissed. Since the State could not get the

petitioner’s custody in the NDPS case, they thought of making a new case,

the instant one, to keep him behind bars. Legally the State was required to

add the alleged offences under the PC Act to the NDPS case, if they had any

material establishing the petitioner’s disproportionate assets. Therefore,

lodging of the FIR is illegal. The petitioner is an opposition leader and has

been exposing the Government at every stage. It is only to settle personal

scores with him that the instant FIR has been lodged in violation of the

settled procedure to keep him behind the bars. This, in fact, was an election

agenda of the present Government also. The entire exercise is vitiated by

mala fides. It is further contended that the State has failed to convince the

Supreme Court about existence of material against the petitioner so far as the

disproportionate assets are concerned, since that was not considered a

sufficient ground to cancel his bail in the NDPS case. And the same material

could not have been used to lodge a fresh case. It is only to bypass the law

laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and

CRM-M-51341-2025 5

another, (2019) 17 SCC 326, that in case the accused has already been

granted the bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or

offences may not proceed to arrest him, and would require to obtain an order

to arrest from the Court which had granted the bail. Therefore, registration

of FIR is in violation of the law and abuse of its process. The material,

money transactions, cash deposits, the alleged disproportionate assets, can

either be drug money or disproportionate assets, as per petitioner’s case; it

cannot be both. Therefore, there is no basis to lodge the FIR in question. It is

an outcome of vendetta politics of the present Government against the

petitioner.

3.2. Still further, learned senior counsel contended that the only

offence the petitioner is accused of is Section 13(1)(b) read with Section

13(2) PC Act. It is based on presumption against the accused and, therefore,

the allegations are to be established during trial and pre-trial incarceration is

not required in the case. He also contended that the petitioner has been out of

power since 2017, and there is no basis to contend that he will influence the

prosecution witnesses and/or hamper the trial in any manner. Similar

allegations against him in the NDPS case were not believed by the Division

Bench while granting bail, nor could the State persuade the Court for

cancelling the bail on those allegations. Even otherwise, the petitioner is

already in custody for over five months since 25.06.2025, and investigation

is over as the challan/chargesheet against him already stands presented in the

Court on 22.08.2025. It runs into about forty thousand pages, and there are

272 witnesses; therefore, there is no possibility of early conclusion of the

trial. A statement by the Investigating Officer, dated 26.11.2025, made

before the trial Court has also been placed on record which is to the effect

CRM-M-51341-2025 6

that investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, however qua

the role of other accused it is still under progress. Much reliance has been

placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and

others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, laying down that ‘grant of bail

is the rule and refusal is the exception’.

4. Per contra, Mr. Singla, learned Additional Advocate General,

Punjab, has addressed arguments by referring to reply filed by way of an

affidavit, dated 27.10.2025, on behalf of the State. He contended that there is

substantial evidence against the petitioner establishing his own enrichment

and also that of his family run companies, apart from acquiring assets

disproportionate to his known sources of income. He became an MLA in

2007 and, subsequently, a Cabinet Minister holding various important

portfolios. Prior thereto, he was running family businesses, including SIL, in

the capacity of its Director and shareholder. After joining public office, his

family run businesses, including SIL, became cash rich in unprecedented

manner. SIL is owned by the petitioner and his family members, the

percentage of shareholding is - petitioner (11.63 per cent), Satyajit Singh

Majithia (5.29 per cent), Satyajit Singh Majithia (HUF)-43.93 per cent,

Gurmehar Singh Majithia (11.63 per cent), Peregrine Saraya Organics Pvt.

Ltd. (Co. of father, brother-in-law, father-in-law of brother)-26 per cent,

other family members (0.03 per cent), other nominal shareholders (1.49 per

cent). The analysis of cash registers of SIL revealed that actual cash

deposited in 2007-08 and 2008-09 in its bank accounts was significantly

higher to the tune of `161.72 crores, more than the cash received in business

as per the cash register. There is no explanation for this. The amount was

CRM-M-51341-2025 7

further utilised for the purpose of acquiring assets and various other entities

by siphoning of the money. Some of his companies channelised money

through foreign entities resulting in abnormal gains of more than `141 crores

approximately. These companies, Clearwater Capital Partners (Cyprus)

Limited, Xentolar Holding Limited (Cyprus), Sindicatum Captive Energy

Singapore Pte. Ltd., primarily based in Cyprus and Singapore, along with

their Indian subsidiaries, pumped in around `196 crores in the petitioner’s

companies. An amount of `35 crores pumped in by a Cyprus based company

was set off for a meagre amount of `3.5 crores during the check period,

02.03.2007 to 31.03.2017. Similarly, another amount of `134 crores was set

off for a meagre amount of `51 crores. Nobody would keep on investing

huge amounts of money without getting any returns, but the Cyprus based

companies and their subsidiaries did that, and despite suffering losses kept

on giving money to the petitioner’s companies.

4.1. There are other allegations regarding Nawanshahar Power

Private Limited (NPPL), a subsidiary of Saraya Renewable Energy Private

Limited, which is also a hundred per cent subsidiary of SIL. It was also

given `22.86 crores by the Cyprus based company and its Indian

subsidiaries against equity shareholding of fifty per cent and preference

shareholding of ninety-nine per cent. However, later the said shareholding

was transferred by the subsidiaries, namely, Sindicatum Solar Energy Gujrat

Private Limited and Sindicatum Solar Energy Private Limited in the name of

petitioner’s mother without any consideration. The petitioner’s mother was

not having any income and the shares were acquired at ‘Nil’ price. This

CRM-M-51341-2025 8

resulted in undue gain of more than `141 crore approximately to SIL and

NPPL.

4.2. Further, it has been alleged that there is four times increase in

the fixed assets of SIL after 2007, whereas neither manufacturing expenses

nor sales had been increased in sync with the fixed assets. Another amount

of `236 crores approximately was credited to the SIL for which there is no

explanation in the financial statements. This amount has allegedly been

transferred/siphoned off for acquiring benami assets worth crores of rupees.

There are several properties acquired by the petitioner from 2007 to 2012,

for which there is no explanation of sources of income. He, as well as his

wife, is accused of acquiring benami properties through questionable means

at Mashobra, Shimla, and Sainik Farms, New Delhi.

4.3. It is also alleged that after the petitioner demitted office as

Minister in 2009, there was an abrupt decline in the total cash deposits in his

companies which fell drastically to ₹3.5 crores only in that year. Thereafter,

upon resumption of ministerial office in March 2012, the same trend of

sharp escalation in credit summations became evident. For instance, `127.90

crores in 2013 and 2014. The timing and fluctuation of these deposits

suggest possible linkage between the petitioner’s official position and

financial activities of SIL.

4.4. The allegations regarding another company, Patiala Kings

Liquor Private Limited (PKLPL), which transferred huge amounts of money

to SIL, as mentioned in the status report, are as under:

25. That a company namely Patiala Kings Liquor Pvt. Ltd.

has transferred more than Rs.855 crores (approx) to the SIL

during the Year 2012-13 and 2013-14. During these two years

CRM-M-51341-2025 9

the total sale of SIL was Rs.1098 crores (approx) i.e. Rs.546

crores + Rs.552 crores as given in table above. The ledger

accounts of SIL in the books of Patiala Kings Liquor Pvt. Ltd.

were checked for the Year 2012-13 and Year 2013-14 as there

were excessive deposits than sales of SIL in these two years

particularly. These payments made to SIL by Patiala Kings

Liquor Pvt. Ltd., as per these ledger accounts, were then cross

checked with the amounts received by SIL from Patiala Kings

Liquor Pvt. Ltd. in their bank accounts. That many deposit

entries in bank accounts of SIL were marked to be received

from Patiala Kings Liquor based on bank statements provided

with full narration and bank receipt books provided which were

said to be recovered from SIL premises at Gorakhpur. Total

about 31 entries amounting to Rs.74.95 crores received by SIL

but are not reflecting in the books of accounts of Patiala Kings,

provided by their CA firm. As such these 31 entries are found to

be unexplained in nature.

4.5. Regarding Saraya Aviation Private Limited (SAPL), the

allegations are as follows:

26. That it has been established that prior to the Year 2012,

the shareholding of SAPL was limited only to Sh. Satyajit Singh

Majithia and SIL. Both of these entities are directly connected

to the petitioner and his family. That subsequent to the Year

2012, SAPL passed a series of Board Resolutions and Allotment

Deeds through which shares of the company were purportedly

distributed among several new individuals. In Year 2014-15,

some new shareholders have been inducted into the business

thereby raising the share capital from Rs 900 lacs to Rs 1631

lacs. The new shareholders include Yadvinder Singh Bains,

Surjit Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Jasbir Kaur, Rupinder Singh,

Dalwinder Singh, Kuljit Kaur, Surjit Kaur, and Major Singh.

While Surjit Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Major Singh belongs to

Village Mughal Chak, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn-Taran the

CRM-M-51341-2025 10

others namely Jasbir Kaur, Rupinder Singh, Dalwinder Singh,

Kuljit Kaur and Surjit Kaur belong to Village Nangli, Tehsil and

District Amritsar. During this Financial Year 2014-15, new

aircrafts have been purchased for Rs. 741.66 lakhs, hence,

directly proportional to the increase in share capital of Rs. 731

lakhs.

It is further alleged that during course of investigation into the affairs of

SAPL, it was found that certain individuals belonging to one family from

Village Nangli, Tehsil and District Amritsar, were shown as shareholders.

But on questioning they stated that they had no knowledge of shareholding

in SAPL in their names; no share certificates were ever received by them

from the company in return for the amounts purportedly invested in their

names, nor had they attended any meeting of the company. They were not

even aware of the company’s business or activities.

4.6. During course of investigation into the financial dealings and

related entities of the petitioner, records pertaining to Peregrine Saraya

Organics Private Limited (PSOPL) were obtained from Registrar of

Companies (ROC). Investigations further revealed a pattern of funding

between SIL and PSOPL, which has been used for layering of funds and

accumulation of assets. SIL has been found to be a principal source of inter-

corporate advances to PSOPL and other related entities without taking any

services from them.

4.7. Regarding foreign entities, the respondent has mentioned

Clearwater Capital Partners (Cyprus) Limited. Many questionable

transactions were detected during investigation, some of which are as under:

39. That it was found that in Financial Year 2005-06, SIL

received Rs. 35 crore as Share Capital Money from foreign

entity M/s Clearwater Capital Partners (Cyprus) Ltd.,

CRM-M-51341-2025 11

representing a 26% equity stake in SIL. The shares were issued

at an extraordinary premium of approximately 3,040% of face

value, suggesting a significant capital inflow disproportionate to

the company's declared net worth at that time. Subsequently,

between Financial Year 2007-08 and Financial Year 2010-11,

SIL also received loan amounts from Clearwater Capital

Partners India Pvt. Ltd., aggregating to Rs. 105.49 crores, with

an additional interest charge of Rs. 41.24 crores reflected in

SIL's accounts. Additionally interest of Rs. 49.77 crores was not

booked by SIL in its books of accounts in the subsequent years

till the date of One Time Settlement. These heavy interest

charges and foreign investment structures indicate a complex

debt-equity hybrid funding model, potentially used for tax

structuring or illicit fund layering.

TRANSFER OF SHARES FROM CLEARWATER TO

PSOPL AT GROSSLY REDUCED VALUE

40. In Financial Year 2014-15, the entire 26% shareholding

of Clearwater Capital Partners (Cyprus) Ltd. in SIL was

transferred to PSOPL at an extreme undervaluation. The sale

price for 11,13,800 shares was only Rs. 3.5 crore, equivalent to

Rs. 31 per share, implying a loss of approximately 90% over the

original investment price. This transfer effectively shifted

foreign-held shares back to a domestic, family-controlled entity

(PSOPL) at a throwaway price, raising suspicion that the loss

was compensated through undisclosed or under-table payments

outside the official financial system.

4.8. The investigation has also revealed that the petitioner has

adopted questionable means to establish his financial and controlling liquor

business in the State, and camouflaged it with benami ownership and

corporate structures. In this regard the allegations pertaining to another

company, SD Beverages Private Limited (SDBPL), are the following:

CRM-M-51341-2025 12

57. That investigation has revealed that Bikram Singh Majithia,

after becoming Member of Legislative Assembly and

subsequently Minister in the Government of Punjab in March

2007, devised a systematic modus operandi to establish his

financial and controlling interest in the liquor business of the

State while camouflaging the same under layers of benami

ownership and corporate structures, Bikram Singh Majithia was

one of the directors and shareholders of SIL, a distillery unit

situated at Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. To avoid public scrutiny

and to conceal his direct involvement in the liquor trade while

holding public office, he formally resigned from the

directorship of SIL but retained his shareholding therein and

control over it. Thereafter, as part of a larger conspiracy to

extend the business operations of SIL into Punjab and to

circumvent statutory restrictions applicable to public

representatives, a new private limited company namely SD

Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as SDBPL) was

incorporated on 18.10.2007 with a nominal paid-up capital of

Rs. 1,00,000 only, having Gurdeep Singh and Arif Aladdin as its

initial directors/ shareholders, who were merely name-lenders

and front-men of Bikram Singh Majithia. Subsequent financial

and documentary evidence indicates that the land and entire

construction cost of the bottling plant of SDBPL was funded

from the resources of SIL and other associates of the accused

petitioner, clearly establishing a direct nexus between the two

entities. As per the records of the Excise Department, the said

company has, since its inception in 2007, been engaged in

blending and bottling liquor for SIL, thereby functioning as an

extension arm of SIL within Punjab.

The scrutiny of bank statements of SDBPL in Axis Bank further revealed

cash deposits of `29.96 lakh during 2008-09, whereas total sales and other

CRM-M-51341-2025 13

income of the company for that year was only `1.7 lakh. The investigation

further revealed as under:

68. That examination of the transaction statements of

SDBPL, maintained with Axis Bank bearing Account No.

303010200003117, reveals that the said company had received

deposits amounting to several crores of rupees from Harpreet

Singh Gulati and Amardeep Singh, and from various concerns

and associate entities under their control. The records further

indicate that the very same funds were subsequently transferred

from the account of SDBPL into the account of Satyajit Singh

Majithia (father of the petitioner). The group of Harpreet Singh

Gulati and Amardeep Singh comprises six business concerns,

namely M/s United Wines, M/s Akash Enterprises, M/s A.D.

Enterprises, M/s UW Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., M/s Akash Spirits

Pvt. Ltd., and M/s A.D. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The pattern of

these transactions clearly reflects a structured movement of

funds through SDBPL, thereby suggesting its use as an

intermediary channel for transferring financial benefits to the

family of the petitioner.

The investigators found the financial trail demonstrated that SDBPL was

being financed either by Harpreet Gulati Group or SIL; both provided the

requisite funds which were subsequently routed through SDBPL to

petitioner’s father for acquisition of properties situated at Mashobra, Shimla,

and Sainik Farms, New Delhi.

4.9. Again there have been transaction trails from M/s Shore to

Shore Logistics Private Limited and Harpreet Gulati, which are statedly as

under:

70. That another chain of financial transactions has been

traced and established, wherein funds have flowed through

entities and concerns belonging to Harpreet Singh Gulati and

CRM-M-51341-2025 14

Amardeep Singh. The transaction trail originates from M/s

Shore to Shore Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Harpreet Gulati, and

culminates in a payment of Rs. 21.50 crores being made by SIL

to M/s Clearwater Capital Partners India Pvt. Ltd. The sequence

of transactions, their originating and terminating points, and the

amounts involved, have been meticulously examined and are

summarized in the table below for ready reference. The said

chain of transactions prima facie indicates structured and

deliberate movement of funds through multiple entities,

suggesting possible diversion or layering of resources for the

benefit of the ultimate recipients (present petitioner).

4.10. The investigation has also revealed allegations regarding M/s

A 2 Zed Transport/ M/s Patiala Express owned by petitioner’s wife and

brother-in-law, which are as under:

89. Accused Bikram Singh Majithia, during his tenure as

Cabinet Minister, misused his official position to build a

transport empire under the guise of M/s A2Zed Transport / M/s

Patiala Express, in the names of his wife and brother-in-law.

The route permits were obtained through coercion, influence,

and payment of large sums in unaccounted cash, while official

records falsely reflected nominal consideration. The total

investment of approximately Rs. 2.80 crore made for acquiring

permits and buses constitutes expenditure from illegal and

undisclosed sources. The firm served as a benami front to

conceal assets and proceeds of corruption belonging to the

accused. M/s A2Zed Transport is a partnership firm (PAN

AAXFA2865J) incorporated on 20-03-2013. The partner of the

firm were Gajpat Singh Grewal and Ganieve Grewal with profit

sharing and holding in the ratio of 25:75 respectively. Since

inception, the firm is engaged in transport services i.e. plying of

passenger buses on selected routes in Punjab. The registered

address of the firm as per the bank account opening forms and

partnership deeds is House number 353, Village Kheri, District

CRM-M-51341-2025 15

Sangrur. As per the amended partnership deed dated 01-10-

2015, the name of the business A2Zed Transport was changed

to M/s Patiala Express.

90. xxx xxx

91. That, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 and the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, route permits for

State Carriage buses are required to be issued by the competent

authority upon payment of the prescribed fees. It is pertinent to

note that there exists no provision under the said Act or Rules

for the sale or purchase of such permits between private parties,

and a permit shall not be transferable from one person to

another except with the express permission of the Transport

Authority which originally granted the permit. That during the

course of the investigation, statements were recorded from

transporters, namely Jagroop Singh, owner of Rauni Bus and

Ramandeep Bus Service, and Simranjit Singh, son of Late Sh.

Kuldeep Singh, owner of Patarsi Bus and Guru Amardas Bus

Service. In addition, bank account details of the said

transporters were obtained from SBI, HDFC Bank, and Kotak

Mahindra Bank, and relevant notifications and records were

obtained from the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and

the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Patiala. Statements of

departmental officers, including Ms. Sukhvir Kaur, Assistant

Transport Officer (Taxation Branch), and Amanpreet Singh,

Section Officer, RTA Patiala, were also recorded from which it

has surfaced that during the check period 02.03.2007 to

31.03.2017, total 26 route permits were purchased in the name

of M/s A2Zed Transport/ M/s Patiala Express from Small

Transporters. Out of which, 8 permits were purchased from the

aforementioned Jagroop Singh and 7 permits from Late Sh.

Kuldeep Singh for total consideration of about Rs. 2.42 crores,

out of which Rs. 16 lacs only were found to be paid through

bank accounts and balance amount of about Rs. 2.26 crores

were paid in cash.

CRM-M-51341-2025 16

4.11. Referring to the aforesaid investigation, learned Additional

Advocate General has further contended that the offences the petitioner is

accused of are very serious economic offences. He has created a web of

companies in the name of his family members and diverted his ill-gotten

money there. Although chargesheet has been filed against him, further

investigation in the case is going on, and the investigating agency is

following the leads which have so far been revealed. In case the petitioner is

released at this stage, it will hamper further investigation and uncovering of

deeper financial irregularities. There are many Chartered Accountants and

other individuals, companies and their subsidiaries, which are closely related

to all the transactions; the same are also under investigation. The petitioner

is the mastermind behind all these transactions, and he is aware about the

entire network of companies that has been created for handling the ill-gotten

money. The investigation has also found leads pointing towards offshore

accounts of the petitioner, and movable and immovable assets in other States

regarding which investigation is going on. Therefore, he should not be

released.

4.12. It has further been contended that the petitioner is an influential

political person in the State, and has been in power for a long time. His

conduct so far in recording video at the time when the vigilance had raided

his premises, as also the threats of dire consequences being issued to the

officials by his relatives, etc., are enough to show there is reasonable

apprehension of his obstructing investigation of the case, as well as

threatening of the witnesses and preventing them from disclosing facts to the

agency.

CRM-M-51341-2025 17

4.13. In support of the contentions he has relied upon the Supreme

Court judgments in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of

Investigation (2013) 3 SCC (Crl.) 552, and Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central

Bureau of Investigation (2013) 3 SCC (Crl.) 575, to contend that economic

offences, which the petitioner is accused of, constitute a class apart, and

need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. These

offences have deep rooted conspiracies and involve huge loss of public

funds, and cannot be treated like other offences so far as grant of bail to the

accused is concerned. He has also relied upon another judgment in State of

Rajashtan v. Surendra Singh Rathore 2025 SCC Online SC 358, which lays

down the circumstances whereunder lodging of second FIR is permissible,

especially when the investigation revealed the earlier FIR to be part of a

larger conspiracy.

5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been

considered.

6. The petitioner is accused of serious economic o ffences.

Investigation of the case has 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. It has also come to notice of the investigating agency that money has

been routed through some foreign entities based in Singapore and Cyprus.

The petitioner is directly or indirectly in control of most of these entities

with immediate family members, and appears to be the key beneficiary. The

transactions as well as the assets accumulated by routing the money in the

manner aforementioned are being investigated. All this has adverse

ramifications for financial health of the State. Various leads to track money

CRM-M-51341-2025 18

trail are being followed. Not only the role of these companies, but also that

of petitioner’s close associates and financial experts is still under

investigation. The investigators are statedly in the process of accessing

crucial records with regard to the questionable financial transactions from

various banks, financial institutions, and other agencies. The petitioner is

one of the prominent political figures in the State of Punjab, and has been a

Cabinet Minister in the Government for over seven years. The investigating

agency has cited about twenty material witnesses, who have been termed

vulnerable. In case the petitioner is to be released from custody at this stage,

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.

7. The reliance by Mr. Cheema on Pradeep Ram case (supra) and

his assertions based thereupon that the State has not followed the correct

procedure in registering the FIR in question with regard to disproportionate

assets said to have come to its notice during investigation of an earlier NDPS

case against the petitioner, are misplaced. 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 observations of the Supreme Court

in Pradeep Ram case are with reference to a situation where the

investigating agency adds offences to an existing case. It has been held that

in such circumstances the agency is required to obtain an order of arrest

from the Court which has granted bail to the accused in the earlier case. The

facts of the instant case are different, as the investigating agency has

registered a second case under the PC Act against the petitioner, and it is

CRM-M-51341-2025 19

entitled to do so as per law laid down in Surendra Singh Rathore case

(supra), which reads as under:

9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the

following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the

registration of a second FIR:

9.1. When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a

rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier

FIR already stands registered.

9.2. When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though

they may arise from the same set of circumstances.

9.3. When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the

earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.

9.4. When investigation and/or persons related to the incident

bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.

9.5. Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or

different.

Accordingly, as the investigating agency statedly came across new facts

which appeared to be part of a larger conspiracy pointing to the petitioner’s

disproportionate assets and use of ill-gotten money, it was within its right to

register second FIR and investigate the case. It cannot be termed a mala fide

exercise or sheer political vendetta against the petitioner.

8. It also needs a reference that the Supreme Court has emphasised

time and again that economic offences constitute a class apart, and for grant

of bail the Court has to take into account the alleged deep rooted

conspiracies to cause huge loss to public exchequer, etc. In somewhat

similar circumstances in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy case (supra), the Court

has observed as under:

34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be

visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The

economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and

CRM-M-51341-2025 20

involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed

seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the

economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious

threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the

nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof,

the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the

character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to

the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of

the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the

witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the

public/State and other similar considerations.

9. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, as

discussed hereinbefore, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the

petitioner at this stage and the petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

However, 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, that

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 investigation be completed within three months. Thereafter, the

petitioner can seek his release on bail.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)

JUDGE

04.12.2025

Maninder

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether reportable : Yes