
Hearing on Bikram Majithia's petition adjourned till 8;
Chandigarh, July 4- The Punjab and Haryana High Court has adjourned till July 8 the hearing on the petition of former cabinet minister and Akali leader Bikram Singh Majithia challenging his 'illegal arrest and remand'. During a brief hearing before a bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, the Advocate General of Punjab argued that Majithia has challenged the orders of June 26, 2025 in the Mohali court, which have become meaningless as fresh summons have been issued since then. Following this, the court has asked Majithia's lawyer to file a revised petition. However, no concrete action was taken in the matter today and the court adjourned the hearing till July 8.
Chandigarh, July 4- The Punjab and Haryana High Court has adjourned till July 8 the hearing on the petition of former cabinet minister and Akali leader Bikram Singh Majithia challenging his 'illegal arrest and remand'. During a brief hearing before a bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, the Advocate General of Punjab argued that Majithia has challenged the orders of June 26, 2025 in the Mohali court, which have become meaningless as fresh summons have been issued since then. Following this, the court has asked Majithia's lawyer to file a revised petition. However, no concrete action was taken in the matter today and the court adjourned the hearing till July 8.
Majithia has termed the case registered by the Vigilance as a result of 'political conspiracy and vendetta' to tarnish his image and harass him. The petition was filed by Sartej Singh Narula, Damanbir Singh Sobti and Arshdeep Singh Cheema. The Vigilance Bureau had registered an FIR against Majithia under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Majithia has said in the petition that the FIR registered at the Vigilance Bureau police station in Mohali on June 25 was “manifestly illegal” and his arrest from his residence on the same day was a “gross violation of established legal process”. Majithia said that he was kept in illegal custody for more than two hours before his official arrest at 11:20 am, as is evident from several video recordings and a remand order was passed the next day.
The petition states, “The detention from 9:00 am to 11:20 am was not only illegal and arbitrary, but was a direct violation of the constitutional and legal requirement to produce the arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours.”
