No relief for Bikram Singh Majithia; Punjab and Haryana HC hearing adjourned to July 8
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday asked the State counsel to seek instructions while adjourning the hearing on former cabinet minister Bikram Singh Majithia’s plea against “illegal arrest and subsequent remand”.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya’s Bench also fixed the case for further hearing on July 8.
Majithia – among other things – had challenged the remand orders, terming them as illegal. He submitted in his petition that the case was a result of “political witch-hunting and vendetta initiated by the present political dispensation with the sole object of maligning and harassing him, as he has been a vocal critic and political opponent”.
The petition was filed through Sartej Singh Narula, Damanbir Singh Sobti, and Arshdeep Singh Cheema days after the vigilance bureau registered the FIR under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Majithia submitted that the FIR, dated June 25, at the Vigilance Bureau police station in Mohali was “patently illegal” and his arrest the same day from his residence was carried out in “gross violation of settled legal procedures”.
Majithia added that he was kept in illegal custody for over two hours prior to his official arrest at 11:20 am, as evident from multiple video recordings and the remand order passed the next day.
“This custodial detention from 9:00 am to 11:20 am was not only illegal and arbitrary but also in direct contravention of the constitutional and statutory requirement of producing the arrestee before a Magistrate within 24 hours, as enshrined under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 187 of the BNSS,” the petition read.
He added that the remand application filed by the investigating agency “lacked concrete or urgent investigative grounds and merely relied on broad, speculative allegations such as the petitioner’s alleged influence, foreign connections, and general statements about the need to confront him with documents or digital devices”.
He further added that the assertions clearly reflected a motive to extract a confession or admission from him in violation of the protections guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Besides this, the order dated June 26 passed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class granting remand until July 2 was “manifestly perverse” and non-speaking.
“It suffers from gross procedural irregularities, particularly non-compliance with the binding Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court…. The magistrate failed to record mandatory satisfaction as required under the rules, including examining case diaries, recording reasons for police custody, and ascertaining the existence of specific investigative needs,” he submitted.
The petition said there was not even a “whisper” in the order to suggest that a magistrate applied his judicial mind or considered the prior orders of the Supreme Court placed before him, especially when custodial interrogation on the same facts had already been declined. Going into the details, the petition said the Apex Court, vide a detailed order dated March 4, had refused the petitioner’s custodial interrogation “despite the same allegation being pressed before it via multiple affidavits filed by the state of Punjab”.
The Supreme Court, instead, directed him to cooperate with the SIT and join the investigation, which was fully complied with. “Despite the petitioner’s cooperation and the Apex Court findings, the State has once again resorted to seeking police custody by concealing material facts and misrepresenting urgency before the magistrate,” it said.
The petition added that the abuse of process, the non-application of judicial mind, and the stark disregard of binding judicial precedent and procedural safeguards not only vitiated the remand order but also constituted a gross violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution.
“The present petition, therefore, raises important questions of law and principle concerning the abuse of criminal process, misuse of remand powers, and the right to a fair investigation and liberty. The petitioner respectfully prays for appropriate reliefs, including the quashing of the illegal remand order and appropriate directions to prevent further abuse of process,” it read.
Punjab