Majithia moves HC, challenges 7-day vigilance remand

Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia has approached the Punjab and Haryana high court challenging his seven days custody given by a Mohali court to the Punjab vigilance bureau (VB) in connection with a Prevention of Corruption Act case registered against him on June 25.

: Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia has approached the Punjab and Haryana high court challenging his seven days custody given by a Mohali court to the Punjab vigilance bureau (VB) in connection with a Prevention of Corruption Act case registered against him on June 25.

Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia has approached the Punjab and Haryana high court challenging his seven days custody given by a Mohali court to the Punjab vigilance bureau (VB) in connection with a Prevention of Corruption Act case registered against him on June 25.

The 50-year-old leader was arrested the same day and on June 26, a Mohali court had given his remand to the vigilance till July 2, which he has challenged in the high court. The remand ends on Wednesday and the petition is yet to be ordered for listing by the high court.

“The present petition…raises important questions of law and principle concerning abuse of criminal process, misuse of remand powers, and the right to fair investigation and liberty. The petitioner respectfully prays for appropriate reliefs, including quashing of the illegal remand order and appropriate directions to prevent further abuse of process,” his petition says.

The bureau claimed preliminary investigations revealed that more than ₹540 crore of drug money was laundered through several channels allegedly facilitated by Majithia. He is already facing a probe in a 2021 drugs case.

The plea claims the criminal case is result of “political witch-hunting and vendetta, initiated by the present political dispensation with the sole object of maligning and harassing” him, who has been “a vocal critic and political opponent”.

The plea claims that the remand application of the vigilance bureau lacked any concrete and urgent investigative ground and merely relied on broad speculative allegations such as the petitioner’s alleged influence, foreign connections and general statement about the need to confront him with documents or digital devices.

“These assertions clearly reflect a motive to extract a confession or admission from the petitioner, in violation of the protections guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India,” it says.

The plea terms remand order by the Mohali court as “perverse and non-speaking” and further claims there is not even “whisper in the order to suggest that the magistrate applied his judicial mind or considered that custodial investigation had already been declined” by the Supreme Court in the alleged drugs case against him.