New Delhi, Apr 25 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by the State of Punjab challenging the regular bail granted to Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia in a high-profile drug case.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s August 10, 2022, order granting bail, while also issuing strong directions to prevent public commentary on the ongoing investigation.
The Court, while refusing to interfere with the bail order, made it clear that neither should the Special Investigation Team (SIT) nor Majithia make any public statements related to the investigation or court proceedings.
The Bench directed Majithia to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court registry within one week, affirming his commitment to refraining from influencing prosecution witnesses or making statements in the media.
The Court also warned that in case of violation, the prosecution would be at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse.
Similarly, prosecution officials must seek prior permission from the Court before addressing the media.
“This Special Leave Petition (SLP) arises out of an order granting bail. During the pendency of this case and as per the orders passed, the respondent has participated in the process of further investigation. In view of the said fact and that liberty was granted by the High Court on August 10, 2022, we are not inclined to interfere. Accordingly, the SLP stands dismissed,” the Court observed.
The Punjab Government, represented by its counsel, argued that Majithia was undermining the investigation by going public with details and statements against SIT members.
“Please see his conduct. He appears on video, names individual SIT officers, alleges they are puppets of the government, and threatens consequences. Such reckless allegations in the public domain derail the investigation,” the counsel submitted.
Justice Maheshwari, responding to the concerns, asked the State to provide specific instances of witness influence and the actions taken in response.
The most serious allegation, the counsel said, was that Majithia revealed a major search operation on social media even before it was executed.
“He disclosed a 56-location search plan the night before. Every location was alerted. The element of surprise was lost, setting back the entire investigation,” the State argued.
Justice Maheshwari questioned whether the Court could bar Majithia from making such disclosures on social media.
At this point, Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, appearing for Majithia, countered the allegations and accused the police officers of themselves holding press conferences and feeding information to the media.
“I have said in my affidavit I do not invite the press. The officers hold press briefings after each date of interrogation,” Dr. Muralidhar stated, calling for mutual restraint.
He denied all claims of influencing the probe and supported the Court’s direction that neither side should make public remarks.
The Bench also expressed concern about the conduct of investigating officers. “Are officers required to hold press conferences? Is that necessary? We will observe this,” Justice Maheshwari said.
The Court said, “We aim to maintain the sanctity of the investigation process while upholding the liberty granted to the respondent.”
