Majithia Bail Cancellation Case in NDPS FIR Adjourned by Two Weeks: Supreme Court Pulls up Punjab State Counsel

The Majithia case is not just about one political leader’s legal troubles; it is emblematic of how politicisation of narcotics enforcement can erode both prosecutorial credibility and public trust.

Majithia Bail Cancellation in NDPS FIR

1. Supreme Court Proceedings: Sharp Rebuke to Punjab Government

In a significant development today (24 March, 2025), the Supreme Court of India sharply criticised the Punjab Government during the hearing on its petition seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) General Secretary and former Punjab Minister Bikram Singh Majithia in a high-profile NDPS case. The case stems from a December 2021 FIR registered during the waning days of the Congress-led Charanjit Singh Channi government by the controversial acting DGP Siddharth Chattopadhyaya.

The Bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, expressed exasperation at the State counsel’s conduct. Justice Maheshwari observed:

“Your panel advocates in the Supreme Court are not appearing. This is everyday drama. State of Punjab means absent. We have recorded this in our orders.”

This pointed remark spotlighted the apparent inconsistency and lack of coordination in the State’s legal representation, particularly concerning a case central to its public stance on combating drug trafficking.

Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar, representing Majithia, criticised the Punjab Government’s political posturing, stating:

“Holding a press conference at this stage... This can't be misused.”

The Court granted the Advocate General of Punjab ten days to file a fresh affidavit and ordered the matter to be listed after two weeks. Meanwhile, the SIT was permitted to continue its investigation. This adjournment, juxtaposed with the Court’s stern tone, amplifies concerns over the Punjab Government’s preparedness and the effectiveness of its instrumentalities in prosecuting a case of national importance and political sensitivity.

2. Origins of the Case and the Bhola Drug Network (2013–2017)

The Bikram Majithia case traces its roots to 2013, when Punjab Police unearthed a massive synthetic drug network allegedly spearheaded by former DSP and wrestler Jagdish Singh Bhola. During custodial interrogations, Bhola implicated Bikram Singh Majithia, claiming the latter facilitated operations through political protection.

Subsequent investigations followed two trajectories:

• Enforcement Directorate (2014): The ED summoned Majithia on 26 December 2014 in a money laundering probe, referencing confessions by three individuals—Jagjit Singh Chahal, Bhola, and Maninder Singh Aulakh—each linking Majithia to the drug trade financially and logistically.

• Special Task Force (2017): Under the newly formed Congress government, headed by Captain Amarinder Singh, ADGP Harpreet Singh Sidhu led an STF that submitted a 34-page sealed report on 1 February 2018, reportedly concluding Majithia had allegedly aided international drug cartels by misusing state resources in return for kickbacks and illegal gratification.

3. The Sealed Cover Phase and Political Controversy (2018–2021)

The STF report, submitted in a sealed cover to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, became a flashpoint for political controversy. Bikram Singh Majithia accused ADGP Harpreet Sidhu—whom he described as an estranged cousin, a claim Sidhu has categorically denied as factually incorrect—of pursuing a personal vendetta¹. This allegation, combined with the opacity surrounding the sealed report, fuelled widespread perceptions of political targeting and misuse of investigative processes for partisan ends.

The report remained sealed until August 2021, when lawyer Navkiran Singh, who is also a human rights activist, sought its public disclosure. The Court lifted the embargo in December 2021, allowing the government to proceed with any legal action, in due process of law. While the report provided the rudimentary evidentiary basis for the FIR, its initial concealment, and frail evidence slowed procedural progress and reinforced narratives of political bias.

4. FIR Registration and Initial Legal Battles (Dec 2021–Feb 2022)

The FIR was eventually registered on 20 December 2021 under the NDPS Act (Sections 25, 27A, and 29) at Mohali, alleging that Bikram Singh Majithia permitted drug operations on his premises, financed the manufacture of synthetic drugs, and conspired with Jagdish Bhola and Jagjit Chahal. The FIR was primarily founded on the voluminous (34-page) yet largely uncorroborated report submitted by ADGP Harpreet Sidhu on 1 February 2018, which, despite its breadth, lacked substantial prosecutable evidence.

Key events:

• DGP Controversy: The Channi-led Congress government appointed Siddharth Chattopadhyaya as acting Director General of Police (DGP) in December 2021, allegedly with the intent to specifically target Bikram Singh Majithia. His appointment came just months after Iqbal Preet Singh Sahota had been named DGP in September 2021, raising questions about the abrupt leadership change. The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) vehemently opposed Chattopadhyaya’s elevation, linking it directly to the timing of the impending FIR against Majithia. Significantly, it was Chattopadhyaya who ordered the registration of the FIR on 20 December 2021, after S.K. Asthana, IPS, then Director of the Punjab Bureau of Investigation, reportedly refused to sign the order and proceeded on medical leave.

• Bail Denials:

  • 24 December 2021: Mohali court rejected anticipatory bail.

  • 24 January 2022: Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed bail, citing grave allegations.

  • 25 January 2022: The High Court allowed a 3-day window to approach the Supreme Court.

5. Surrender, Judicial Custody, and Bail (February–August 2022)

Majithia surrendered on 24 February 2022, following the expiry of the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court—relief that had effectively enabled him to campaign in the 2022 Punjab Vidhan Sabha elections. He thereafter spent nearly six months in judicial custody, primarily lodged at Patiala Central Jail.

Interestingly, the investigating agency of the Punjab Police neither sought police remand at the time of his surrender nor moved for production warrants to interrogate him during his judicial custody. No attempt was even made to seek the trial court’s permission to question him within the confines of Patiala Central Jail. This lackadaisical approach in the initial phase stands in stark contrast to the perceived over-enthusiasm shown by the authorities to question and interrogate him only after he was granted regular bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

On 10 August 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted Majithia bail, noting the frailty of evidence as one of the “reasonable grounds” to form a prima facie view that he was not guilty of the offences alleged in the FIR. However, the Court made it explicitly clear that the order should not be construed as an acquittal and directed that the trial court must remain uninfluenced by the observations made in the bail order. The bail conditions included the surrender of his passport and a strict prohibition on influencing witnesses, as also cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

6. Post-Bail Legal Developments (2022–2025)

Subsequent developments included:

• SC Recusal and Notice:

  • 30 January 2023: Justice Surya Kant recused himself due to his having heard the “sealed cover” reports matter in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

  • 17 March 2023: Supreme Court issued notice on the State’s bail cancellation plea.

• Chattopadhyaya Fallout:

  • 15 September 2023: His report was rejected by a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, for exceeding jurisdiction.

  • 1 January 2024: The Punjab Government initiated a departmental inquiry into allegations of misuse of power and personal security by Siddharth Chattopadhyaya, in addition to examining charges of professional incompetence—particularly in relation to the serious security lapse that led to the obstruction of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s convoy en route from Bathinda to Hussainiwala in Ferozepur on 5 January 2022. As a consequence, certain pensionary benefits due to him have been withheld and placed in abeyance.

7. Recent SIT Investigations and Absconding Co-Accused (March 2025)

In compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions issued on 4 March 2025, Bikram Singh Majithia appeared before the Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by the DIG of Ropar Range, on 17 and 18 March. He was interrogated for over 15 hours across the two days in connection with certain assets and suspicious foreign transactions linked to firms and entities allegedly owned or operated by individuals said to be closely associated with him.

Absconding Co-Accused:

• Parminder Singh Pindi: Canadian citizen; accused of supplying chemicals.

• Satpreet Satta: Allegedly ran drug labs from Majithia-linked premises.

• Amarinder Singh: Allegedly laundered funds through shell firms.

Extradition requests are pending; however, Indian law allows separate trials in their absence.

8. Legal Framework: Trial Without Absconding Accused

Indian jurisprudence enables trials to proceed against available accused:

• Section 319 CrPC: Permits summoning additional accused mid-trial.

• Split Trial Doctrine: Enables separate prosecution under NDPS and PMLA provisions.

• Supreme Court in Ganesan v. State (2021): Approved continuation of trials despite absconding co-accused.

9. Current Supreme Court Hearing (24 March 2025 and next date)

The State of Punjab’s plea hinges on allegations that Majithia:

• Obstructed the SIT’s asset investigation by providing evasive responses or failing to furnish the requisite information.

• Did not adequately explain offshore transactions, which he maintains are unrelated to him and involve entities with which he has no connection.

The credibility of statements made by convicted accused Jagjit Singh Chahal and Jagdish Singh Bhola remains under scrutiny, especially given their roles as approvers. Meanwhile, the political overtones of the case—marked by persistent allegations of vendetta—continue to shape public perception.

Judicial outcomes may range from the affirmation of bail, particularly in light of procedural shortcomings, to its cancellation if wilful non-cooperation is established. However, this must also be viewed against settled legal principles: an accused’s cooperation with the investigating agency does not imply an obligation to confess guilt or respond precisely as investigators desire. Furthermore, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides a fundamental safeguard, stating that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

10. Status of Original Bhola Case Accused

• Jagjit Singh Chahal: Convicted in 2019 under NDPS; testified against Majithia.

• Jagdish Singh Bhola: Serving a cumulative 34-year sentence across NDPS and PMLA cases; turned approver.

• Maninder Singh Aulakh: Initially acquitted in 2019, later re-chargesheeted in 2021; trial pending.

11. Additional Issues Before the Supreme Court on Next Date

The key issues likely to come under consideration in the forthcoming hearing before the Supreme Court include:

• Whether Bikram Singh Majithia has violated the conditions of his bail by failing to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

• The legal and evidentiary significance of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s verdict dated 15 September 2023, which rejected former DGP Siddharth Chattopadhyaya’s “sealed cover” report—particularly in light of its references to unsubstantiated and, at times, speculative claims of broader drug trafficking, and its reliance on ADGP Harpreet Sidhu’s earlier report. This is especially relevant since the latter had formed the very foundation of the NDPS FIR registered against Majithia on 20 December 2021.

• The adequacy, reliability, and admissibility of the material recently collected by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) during its interrogation of Majithia on 17 and 18 March, as well as during earlier stages of the investigation.

• The extent to which allegations of impropriety and professional misconduct against Chattopadhyaya may have compromised the credibility and impartiality of the original investigative process, particularly with respect to the registration of the FIR.

The outcome of the hearing is also likely to turn on the Supreme Court’s assessment of Majithia’s compliance with its 4 March directive to appear before the SIT, and the overall strength of the Punjab Government’s case in seeking cancellation of bail on grounds of non-cooperation or wilful evasion.

12. Expert Perspectives: Legal Boundaries, Investigative Limits, and the Question of Bail Cancellation

We consulted a broad spectrum of legal experts who have been closely monitoring not only the ongoing proceedings against Bikram Singh Majithia but also the broader legal trends surrounding “sealed cover” investigations and high-profile narcotics prosecutions. The consensus among them is clear: investigations, no matter how politically charged or socially significant, cannot be allowed to continue in perpetuity without culminating in a legally sustainable outcome.

Under the law, an investigation must either lead to the filing of a charge sheet before the competent court, supported by sufficient prosecutable evidence; a closure report where no such evidence is found; or a discharge application where the material fails to meet the threshold of criminal culpability. Indefinite prolongation of the investigative process, absent judicial scrutiny, poses a serious challenge to the rule of law and fair trial principles.

With the benefit of hindsight, several experts believe it may have been procedurally more robust to arraign Majithia as an additional accused in the original Bhola drug case, particularly when Bhola and his co-accused were being prosecuted. Some of those individuals, including Jagdish Singh Bhola and Jagjit Singh Chahal, made self-incriminating confessional statements and turned approvers. Their testimonies, while potentially significant, would have to be tested at trial for reliability and admissibility, especially under the rigours of cross-examination.

Importantly, a strong legal argument in Majithia’s favour stems from the fact that no recovery of contraband, proceeds of crime, or incriminating material was made from him either at the time of his arrest or during his nearly six-month judicial custody. Notably, the investigating agency neither sought his police remand nor moved the court for production warrants during this period to interrogate him further. This lack of investigative follow-through substantially weakens the case for bail cancellation, as it raises questions about the seriousness and direction of the probe during a critical phase.

Although the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while granting bail to Majithia, explicitly stated that the trial court must remain uninfluenced by the observations made in the bail order, its finding that the evidence was “frail” as of that date is not without consequence. If and when the trial commences, the state will still carry the burden of presenting credible, corroborated evidence capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.

However, at this stage, speculation about the trial's future trajectory is premature. The matter currently before the Supreme Court is narrowly focused on whether the bail granted to Majithia ought to be cancelled. While he appears to have complied with the Court’s 4 March directive by presenting himself before the SIT on two consecutive days in Police Lines, Patiala, the pivotal issue now is whether the purportedly suspicious transactions flagged by the SIT, in the absence of recoveries or custodial interrogation, are sufficient to persuade the Supreme Court to reverse the High Court’s decision and cancel the bail.

13. Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Legal and Political Accountability

Today’s Supreme Court rebuke of the Punjab Government underscores a deeper malaise afflicting high-stakes narcotics litigation—lack of legal preparedness, procedural lapses, and political posturing that risks undermining genuine anti-drug enforcement. Justice Maheshwari’s reference to “everyday drama” is not merely rhetorical; it exposes the fragility of institutional responses to deeply entrenched criminal-political nexuses.

The Majithia case is not just about one political leader’s legal troubles; it is emblematic of how politicisation of narcotics enforcement can erode both prosecutorial credibility and public trust. As the matter returns to the Supreme Court in two weeks, the onus is now firmly on the legal team of Punjab Government to move beyond press conferences and deliver a legally cogent, evidence-backed case. The Apex Court's eventual ruling will not only shape Majithia's future but may well become a benchmark for handling politically sensitive NDPS prosecutions in India.

1. Bikram Singh Majithia accused ADGP Harpreet Sidhu—whom he described as an estranged cousin, a claim Sidhu has categorically denied as factually incorrect—of pursuing a personal vendetta.